Court’s Decision: The Madras High Court partially allowed the writ petition, directing the respondent (Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation) to pay the petitioner back wages for the period from June 1, 2016, to November 28, 2016, along with an interest rate of 7% per annum. The court found that the denial of work was due to the respondent’s refusal to accept the petitioner’s joining report, despite no fault on the petitioner’s part. The court also confirmed the petitioner’s reinstatement.
Facts: The petitioner, employed as a driver, took medical leave starting May 11, 2016. Upon recovery, he attempted to resume duty on June 1, 2016. However, the respondent’s Branch Manager refused to accept the petitioner’s joining report due to a pending police complaint against him. This led the petitioner to raise an industrial dispute, culminating in an award on November 28, 2016, granting him reinstatement but denying back wages for the period between June 1 and November 28, 2016. The petitioner then challenged this denial.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the denial of back wages to the petitioner, despite the respondent’s refusal to let him resume duty, was justified under the “No Work No Pay” principle.
Petitioner’s Arguments: The petitioner argued that he was ready and willing to work, but the management’s refusal was unwarranted and led to his unjust loss of wages.
Respondent’s Arguments: The respondent contended that, per the “No Work No Pay” principle, back wages should be denied since the petitioner did not perform any work during the disputed period.
Analysis of the Law: The court analyzed the “No Work No Pay” doctrine, typically applied where an employee is unwilling or fails to work. However, the court found that this principle did not apply in the present case, as the petitioner was willing to work, and the denial came from the respondent without any documented reason or objection.
Precedent Analysis: The judgment implicitly referenced labor law principles protecting workers who, despite readiness to work, face denial from employers. Although no specific precedents were cited, the court followed established norms supporting worker reinstatement and wage compensation in cases of unjustified employer action.
Court’s Reasoning: The court reasoned that since the petitioner was denied work due to the respondent’s actions and not his own, the doctrine of “No Work No Pay” was inapplicable. The court noted that the respondent failed to present any evidence justifying its refusal to allow the petitioner to resume work, which underscored the petitioner’s entitlement to back wages.
Conclusion: The court set aside the denial of back wages, finding the management’s refusal unjustified. The petitioner was entitled to full back wages for the period specified, to be paid with 7% annual interest from the due date until payment completion.
Implications: This judgment underscores the court’s stance on protecting employees against unjust denial of work by employers. It reaffirms that the “No Work No Pay” doctrine is not a blanket rule and does not apply where the employer, rather than the employee, is at fault.
