Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B. BALAJI, J.
V.R. Venkatesan (S1352) & Others – Appellants
Versus
Anglo French Textiles (Unit of Pondicherry Textile Corporation Limited), Puducherry & Others – Respondents
W.P. Nos. 24642,31384 & 33399 of 2018 & W.M.P. Nos. 36569,38769,28678 & 28679 of 2018
Decided On : 28-07-2023
Writ Petition - Salary and Allowances - EPF - 18(1) Settlement - No Work, No Pay - Act of God - [Article 226 of the Constitution of India] - [W.P.No.33399 of 2018, W.P.No.24642 of 2018, W.P No.31384 of 2018] - The court discussed the applicability of the 'no work, no pay' principle, the impact of the Thane Cyclone as an 'Act of God', and the employer's obligation to pay statutory contributions such as EPF. The court relied on various judgments to establish that when the employer does not allow the employee to work or keeps the employee away from work, the principle of 'no work, no pay' cannot be applied. The court also rejected the argument of 'Act of God' and held that statutory payments cannot be denied citing financial losses and hardships.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought payment of salary and allowances for a specific period, employer's contribution towards EPF, and salary for the months of July and August 2012. The respondents contended that the petitioners were not entitled to seek any monetary benefits due to the 'no work, no pay' principle and the impact of the Thane Cyclone.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the 'no work, no pay' principle cannot be applied as the petitioners were ready and willing to work, but the employer did not allow them to work. The court also rejected the argument of 'Act of God' and held that statutory payments cannot be denied citing financial losses and hardships.
Issues: The main issue was the entitlement of the petitioners to salary and allowances, employer's contribution towards EPF, and the impact of the 'no work, no pay' principle and 'Act of God' argument raised by the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that when the employer does not allow the employee to work or keeps the employee away from work, the principle of 'no work, no pay' cannot be applied. The court also rejected the argument of 'Act of God' and held that statutory payments cannot be denied citing financial losses and hardships.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were allowed, and the respondents were directed to settle the amounts due and payable to the petitioners within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the court's order.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus Directing the Respondents herein to pay to the Petitioner (i) Monthly salary and allowances at the rates applicable from time to time for the period from 01.01.2013 till 30.04.2020 (ii) Employers contribution towards EPF accounts of the Petitioners for the period from 01.01.2013 to 30.04.2020 and (iii) Salary for the months of July and August 2012 taken by the 1st respondent Mill as Working Capital.
W.P.No.33399 of 2018: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to pay the arrears of salary for the months of January to October 2013 together with interest at 10% after adjusting the advance of Rs.40,000/-.)
Common Order
W.P.No.24642 of 2018:
1. This writ petition was originally filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to pay salary and allowances to the petitioners. However subsequently, pending the writ petition, the petitioners have taken out an application to amend the prayer and the said application was also ordered by this Court. In view of the amended prayer the directions sought for is for payment of salary and allowances for the period 01.01.2013 – 30.04.2020 and employer’s contribution for the same period namely 01.01.2013 – 30.04.2020 and for salary for the month of July and August 2012 (amendment order vide WMP No.24355 of 2022 dated 20.09.2022)
W.P No.33399 of 2018:
This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of awrit of mandamus to direct the respondent to pay arrears of salary for the months January to October 2013, together with interest as 10% p.a. after adjusting the advance of Rs.40,000/-.
W.P No.31384 of 2018:
This writ petition was filed originally filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to pay salary and allowances to the petitioners. However subsequently, pending the writ petition,the petitioners have taken out an application to amend the prayer and said application was ordered by this Court. In view of the amended prayer, the directions sought for is for payment of salary and allowances for the period 01.01.2013 – 30.04.2020 and employer’s contribution for the same period namely 01.01.2013 – 30.04.2020 and for salary for the month of July and August 2012 (amendment order vide WMP No.24352 of 2022 dated 20.09.2022).
2. The prayer in two of the three writ petitions is one and the same. The facts that are common in these writ petitions are that the petitioners are all newly appointed to the 1st respondent, Anglo French Textiles, which is a unit of the 2nd respondent and a Government of Puducherry undertaking. It is not in dispute that the terms and conditions of appointment of the petitioners were the same as applicable to central government employees.
3. W.P.No. 7731 of 2014, was filed by the Anglo-French Textiles Technical Supervisor’s Welfare Association seeking implementation of the sixth central pay commission recommendations and pending the said writ petition, the 1st respondent was severely affected by the ‘Thane Cyclone’ on 29th and 30th of December 2011. As a result, workmen were laid off with effect from 05.11.2014. However, the petitioners being technical supervisors and not governed by Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were not treated on par with the laid off workmen who were paid 50% of the wages as lay off compensation. In the case of the petitioners, the management decided to pay them Rs.15,000/-per month under the head of salary advance. After February 2017, the head salary advance was treated by the management as ex- gratia payment. According to the petitioners, even the said the meagre amount of Rs. 15000/- was not paid from March 2018, thereby crippling the petitioners. Despite request for re-deployment to suitable and other posts, no action was taken and it is also the specific cas
The right to receive wages for work performed is a fundamental right linked to the right to livelihood. A parent organization remains the principal employer for staff on deputation and cannot evade l....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to decide disputed facts under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act when there is no employer-employee relations....
The principle of 'No Work, No Pay' applies only when an employee is out of service; it is inapplicable when the employee is willing to work but not utilized by the employer.
The principle of 'no work no pay' is inapplicable when an employee is willing to work but is prevented from doing so by the employer's actions or failure to comply with reinstatement orders, entitlin....
The principle of 'no work no pay' prevails when an employee deliberately absents from the workplace without providing sufficient and reasonable grounds for such absence.
Claims for equal pay and regularization must be pursued through proper industrial dispute channels, and misrepresentation disqualifies a party from equitable relief.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
