The principle 'no work-no pay' cannot be applied to deny employees wages for the whole day, even though they worked for part of the day or were present for the whole day but did not do the allocated work, in the absence of a statutory provision or a term in the contract of service.

NAINAR SUNDARAM, J

Writ Appeals Nos. 748, 774, 775 & 776/80 and 8, 9, 26 & 84/81 and Writ Petitions Nos. 713 & 875/84, ORDER

Per Nainar Sundaram, JThere are eight writ appeals and two writ petitions. The writ appeals are directed against the common order of Padmanabhan. J., the same reported in V. Ganeshan v. State Bank of India and others (1988-LLJ-64). Nationalised Banks - the employers - are the appellants in the writ appeals. The employees of Nationalised Banks are respondents in the writ appeals and in the two writ petitions, such employees, represented by their unions, are the petitioners. The controversy, both in the writ appeals and in the writ petitions, stems out of the actions taken or proposed to be taken by the Nationalised Banks against their employees. We shall first deal with the writ appeals. We have avoided delineating minute details of the facts of the cases, in view of the scope of the points argued before us. In six out of eight writ appeals, the employees went on demonstrations during working hours of the day in question and thereby absented themselves from the work spot for those hours and did not do the allocated work, during those hours. But they were allowed to work for the remaining hours. In the remaining two writ appeals, the employees declined to do the clearing house operations, even though they were present during the working hours. The Nationalised Banks, on both the counts, withheld or proposed to withhold the pay and allowances of the employees for the whole of the days in question. This has obliged the employees to come to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impeaching the actions of the nationalised banks.

2. Before Padmanabhan, J., who heard an disposed of the writ petitions, out of which the writ appeals arise, the main ground, put forth by the Nationalised Banks for sustaining their actions was that the principle 'no work-no pay' should be applied, so as to deny the employees the wages for the whole of the days in question, even though the employees worked for part of the days, or being present for the whole of the days did not do the allocated work. It was also contended by the Nationalised Banks before the learned by the single Judge that the controversy is one, which has got foundation in a contract of employment simpliciter between master and servant and there is no warrant for this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue the writs prayed for. The learned single Judge held that the Nationalised Banks will come within the ambit of 'the other authority' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. This view has not been questioned before us also either in the writ appeals or in the writ petitions by the learned counsel, appearing for the Nationalised Banks. The learned single Judge opined that in the absence of statutory provisions or a term in the contract of service, it is not permitted for the Nationalised Banks to deny their employees and withhold their emoluments even for those working hours in the day during which the said employees did work. With regard to the working hours during which the employees abstained from working, the learned single Judge countenanced the plea of acquiescence on the part of the Nationalised Banks in the breach committed, put forth by the learned counsel appearing for the employees. However, on a concession made by the learned counsel for the employees that his clients will be content with the emoluments only for the working hours of the day during which they actually worked, and since he did not press forth for emoluments with regard to the working hours during which the employees did not work, the learned single Judge, while allowing the writ petitions, gave liberty to the Nationalised Banks to deduct pro rata salary of employees for the period of their absence from duty. The learned single Judge made it clear that he has not considered the question as to whether the Nationalised Banks will be en