The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has dismissed an appeal filed by the J&K Horticulture Produce Marketing and Processing Corporation challenging a writ court’s direction to release salary and consequential benefits to certain employees for an intervening period during which they were kept away from service.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Mohd. Yousuf Wani upheld the writ court’s judgment dated 11 May 2023 in SWP No.2662/2013, affirming that the principle of “no work no pay” does not apply when employees are kept away from work due to the employer’s act or omission.
Case Background
The respondents, former employees of the Corporation, had opted for voluntary retirement under a scheme framed by the Government, which mandated that voluntary retirement benefits be paid within sixty days of acceptance. Although the respondents’ offers for voluntary retirement were accepted with effect from 10 April 2013 (formalised by order dated 17 May 2013), their dues were not paid.
The respondents filed a writ petition seeking directions to release the payments as calculated in the Corporation’s management letter dated 26 August 2013. Subsequently, they amended the petition to seek release of salary for the intervening period when they remained out of service.
While the Corporation argued that under the “no work no pay” principle, salary was not payable for the period when no service was rendered, the respondents contended that their non-working status was solely attributable to the Corporation’s default in fulfilling its obligations.
Arguments
Mr. Faheem Nisar Shah, learned Government Advocate for the appellant Corporation, submitted that the writ court erred in directing payment of salary for the period during which the respondents did not perform work.
Conversely, Mr. M. Y. Bhat, learned senior counsel for the respondents, argued that the employees were forced into their predicament by the Corporation’s breach of its promise to pay voluntary retirement dues, and that they resumed duties only upon court intervention. It was asserted that the respondents were willing to work but were prevented from doing so by the Corporation.
Court’s Analysis
The Court noted that Clause 5(iv) of the Government’s Voluntary Retirement Scheme mandated payment within sixty days. It observed that the respondents’ dues were not settled within this time frame due to the appellant’s inaction.
The Court recorded that the respondents were taken back into service after the writ petition was filed, and that the controversy revolved solely around entitlement to salary for the intervening period.
Importantly, the Bench held that the principle of “no work no pay” is applicable only when an employee is absent due to his own act or omission. When an employee is kept away by the employer’s act or omission, salary cannot be denied.
The Court relied on judgments of the Supreme Court in Commr., Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah, (2007) 7 SCC 689, J. N. Srivastava v. Union of India, AIR 1999 SC 1571, and Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, AIR (SCW) 1991 2276, to support its conclusions.
Decision
Concluding that there was no illegality in the judgment of the writ court, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal, holding:
“The respondents were kept away from work by the authorities after accepting their offer of voluntary retirement and, as such, they are entitled to salary for the intervening period.”
The Court found the writ court’s decision to be “well-reasoned and lucid” and directed that no order as to costs be made.
