IMPORTANT POINT
The employer has the authority to withhold salary for unauthorized absence in accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and the 'no work no pay' principle.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral) - The present intra-court appeal assails the order dated 18th August 2023 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby Appellant's challenge to the reassignment of his role by the Respondent-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited ("HPCL"), was dismissed. The ambit of the Appellant's challenge now solely focusses on the issue of entitlement to salary for the period spanning four and a half months i.e., February (half-month salary) to June 2019.

2. Brief facts leading up to the filing of the present appeal are as under:

2.1. In 1986, the Appellant joined the service of HPCL in the capacity of Clerk-cum-Typist within "Grade M-08", before being subsequently elevated to the position of Chief Administrative Superintendent. On 25th January 2019, HPCL issued a reassignment letter bearing no. MNZ.KG.PERS/T to the Appellant, redirecting him to the Operations and Distribution (O&D) Department, North Zone, on a lateral basis in "Cluster C" with immediate effect.

2.2. Upon further enquiry, Appellant was informed that he had being reassigned to the role of a Stenographer. This reassignment was objected to by the Appellant, who submitted a representation articulating his concerns. However, this representation failed to garner favour from HPCL. On 02nd April, 2019, Appellant received a reminder from HPCL of the reassignment and he was directed to report accordingly. Upon his failure to comply, Appellant was marked absent and the salary disbursal was ceased.

2.3. Faced with this situation, the Appellant filed a writ petition [W.P.(C) 4928/2019] impugning the said reassignment letter. Moreover, he aired grievances regarding the cessation of his salary disbursements which were coupled with prohibitions barring him from executing his work duties.

2.4. The said writ petition was initially disposed of vide order dated 08th May, 2019, in terms of the statement made by HPCL counsel, holding that the Appellant herein would not be reassigned to the position of a Stenographer, and that salary dues from March 2019 onwards, would be disbursed. In appeal filed by HPCL against the aforesaid order, the Division Bench remanded the case back to the learned Single Judge on the specific issue: Whether the Appellant was entitled to salary for the months of April and May, 2019 or not? Pursuant thereto, the matter was decided by the learned Single Judge by way of the impugned order, as under:

"30. On perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs, it is crystal clear that the position of law is settled with regards to the payment of salaries when the employee deliberately absences from the workplace without providing sufficient and reasonable grounds for such absence.

31. In the instant case, it is evident that the petitioner deliberately abstained from joining the new location, and kept visiting the old office to mark his attendance in the officer register. It is also clear that the respondent Corporation had tried their level best to convince the petitioner to join the relocated office, however, the petitioner was adamant on his stance and kept on sending representations requesting quashing of the order passed by the respondent Corporation in due accordance with law.

32. On perusal of material on record, it is also clear that the petitioner is currently working in `Cluster C' and even though there is no particular role assigned to the employees in the clusters, the CDP clearly envisages that the employees working under Cluster `C' are required to perform all the jobs pertaining to the categories includes both clerical and secretarial jobs.

33. In the earlier hearings in the instant petition, the respondent Corporation had given assurances that the petitioner shall not be deployed as a stenographer and had concurred to the contention that the petitioner does not possess the requisite skill and qualification for being appointed as the stenographer, however, the petitioner still took considerable time to join the relocated position, therefo