The denial of wages to the petitioner solely because no work was assigned to him or no work was done by him is not sustainable.

JUDGMENT :

V. Khalid, J.—These two writ petitions arise from the same award of the Industrial Tribunal, Calicut. They are being disposed of together. I shall deal with O.P. No. 5967 of 1975 first.

2. The petitioner is an electricity worker of the K.S.E. Board. He commenced his service as C.L.R. from 16-12-1966. Under orders of the Board, C.L.R. hands who had put in 240 days of work before 1-7-1968 were entitled to be treated as N.M.R. from that date.

3. The petitioner was arrested in connection with a criminal case on 24-6-1968. He was acquitted in that case. During the pendency of the said case, the Board did not employ him. He was reinstated on 18-11-1970 as C.L.R. and was treated as N.M.R. only from 1-7-1971.

4. An Industrial dispute was raised regarding the claims of the petitioner for wages from 24-6-1968 to 18-11-1970. By award dated 30-5-1975 the Tribunal held that the petitioner was entitled to be treated as N.M.R. from 1-7-1968, but the wages for the period in question was disallowed. It is this portion of the award that is under challenge in this writ petition.

5. The Industrial Tribunal while disallowing the claim of the petitioner for the period from 24-6-1968 to 18-11-1970 directed the management to categorise the petitioner as N.M.R. worker with effect from 1-7-1968 and all benefits to be given to him on such categorisation. It was also directed that he should be treated as a worker and his grades of pay and increment, etc., could be fixed on that basis. This part of the award is challenged in O.P. No. 5035 of 1975 on the ground that it is beyond the scope of the reference to the Industrial Tribunal.

6. The petitioner's contention in O.P.No. 5967 of 1975 is that the denial to him of the wages for the period in question is solely on the ground that he was a casual worker. There is nothing in law which disentitles a casual worker illegally kept out of employment from claiming wages or other compensation. In Ext. P1 there are indications to the effect that the petitioner was kept out of employment without sufficient justification. There is a direction that he should be treated as having become N.M.R. worker from 1-7-1968.

7. The only ground on which employment was denied to the petitioner was the pendency of a criminal case. It is not the case of the Board or the State that he was under arrest for the entire period. I have no materials in this case to show that the criminal case related to anything connected with the petitioner’s employment. He was available for work. There is no material to show that the service of the worker concerned was terminated. This is because after the acquittal in the criminal case the petitioner was reinstated which is proof of the fact that he continued to be a worker with the Board. No standing orders or service rules have been produced to show that the employee could be kept out of employment without paying wages.

8. In The Management of Hotel Imperial, New Delhi and Others Vs. Hotel Workers' Union, AIR 1959 SC 1342, the scope of an employer's right to keep the employee out of service is discussed. The relationship between master and servant untrammelled by legislations is that the master can at any time terminate the service of the servant. The rule in ancient times was hire and fire. This power was curtailed by legislations. This power did not take along with it any power of suspension. A master gets the right to suspend a worker only when there is specific authorisation in this behalf either embodied in a contract or any other statutory provisions. In this case it cannot be said that the petitioner was under suspension for the period for which wages are claimed. If he is not under suspension, the petitioner should be deemed to be in service. The following extract from the above judgment makes the position clear :

The first question, therefore, that falls for consideration is the extent of the power of the employer to suspend an employee under the ordinary law of master and servant. It is now