( 1 ) THIS appeal presents an instance of application of the rule, "no work, no pay" as well as the exception to the said rule. In response to an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Deputy Manager, Accounts (Project), the first respondent who was employed with some other management, applied to the appellant Company on 25-2-1983. He was selected and a letter of appointment was issued to him on 23-5-1984. Between the said date and 22-10-1984, correspondence between the first respondent and the appellant is brought on record but it is not necessary to refer to the same because the appellant had agreed to extend the time till 22-10-1984 to enable the first respondent to join the service. It is not in dispute that, on that date, the first respondent reported for duty but he was not allowed to work nor was he paid any salary from that date.

( 2 ) IT appears that the appellant was involved in litigation in the Calcutta high Court, with the Burns Standard Officers Association being Civil Rule no. 4543 (W) of 1982. In the said proceedings, a learned Single Judge of the high Court at Calcutta passed the following order:"till the disposal of this application, no appointment by way of direct recruitment is to be made in respect of non-selection post without the leave of this Court. "it is not in dispute that the post to which the first respondent was appointed is a non-selection post. Subsequently, that order came to be modified on 13-8-1984. The relevant portion of the modified order reads as under:"meanwhile no appointment by way of direct recruitment is to be made in respect of non-selection posts without giving a notice of at least seven days to the petitioners Association. If there is any objection raised by the Association then the Association shall be at liberty to mention this matter before this Court. "

( 3 ) IT was by virtue of the said orders of the High Court, it is contended, the appellant was in a fix to permit the first respondent to join the service when he reported on 22-10-1984.

( 4 ) THE first respondent having found himself in an unenviable position of leaving the earlier job and joining the service in the appellant Company and being without salary filed a writ petition [cr No. 19272 (W) of 1984] praying, inter alia, for a direction to the appellant to allow him to join the post of Deputy Manager, Accounts (Project) and also claiming salary with effect from 22-10-1984. On the said writ petition, on 27-12-1984, a learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court passed an order, which reads thus:"in the meanwhile, the respondents are directed not to fill up the vacancy for the post of Deputy Manager, Accounts (Project) until the rule is culled out. "having failed to get any relief, the first respondent filed a second writ petition, Civil Order No. 13315 (W) of 1985, praying for a direction to the appellant to pay his salary for the post of Deputy Manager, Accounts (Project) with effect from 22-10-1984. On 18-9-1985, a learned Single Judge issued the following directions:"in the meantime, the respondents are directed to pay salary to the petitioner including arrears, if any, as admissible in law. This order is passed upon consideration of the facts and the circumstances of the case upon hearing the submissions made on behalf of the parties. "the appellant carried that order in appeal before a Division bench. The appeal was admitted and, it is stated, that the order under appeal was stayed. By order dated 11-4-1989, the writ appeal was disposed of directing the learned Single Judge to dispose of the writ petitions filed by the first respondent expeditiously. Accordingly, those writ petitions were allowed on 22-12-1995. The appellant questioned the correctness of that order in fmat No. 371 of 1997. The Division Bench of the High Court which heard the appeal, declined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single judge and dismissed the appeal on 14-8-1997. It is from that order of the division Bench