The principle of 'no work no pay' is not applicable when employees are willing to work but are kept away from discharging their duties due to the fault of the employer.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. SARANGI, J.

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 6277 of 2014, who was working as rigger in the office of the Executive Engineer, Rengali Right Canal Division No.1, Baghuabol, Talcher in the district of Angul, had approached the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack on 05.02.2013, in O.A. No. 954 (C) of 2013 seeking to regularize his disengagement period from 01.04.2002 to 03.09.2007 with all financial benefits including promotion and all other benefits which have been granted to his counterpart employees.

2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 6278 of 2014, who was working as Vibrator Operator Gr-IV in the office of the Executive Engineer, Rengali Right Canal Division No.1, Baghuabol, Talcher in the district of Angul, had approached the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack on 03.05.2013, in O.A. No. 1292 (C) of 2013 seeking to regularize his disengagement period from 01.04.2002 to 21.08.2007 with all financial benefits including promotion and all other benefits which have been granted to his counterpart employees.

3. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 6279 of 2014, who was working as Vibrator Operator Gr-IV in the office of the Executive Engineer, Rengali Right Canal Division No.1, Baghuabol, Talcher in the district of Angul, had approached the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack on 03.05.2013, in O.A. No. 1293 (C) of 2013 seeking to regularize his disengagement period from 01.04.2002 to 26.08.2007 with all financial benefits including promotion and all other benefits which have been granted to his counterpart employee.

4. The Orissa Administrative Tribunal, having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the materials available on record, vide identical orders dated 20.03.2013, 20.09.2013 and 20.09.2013 passed in O.A. No. 954 (C) of 2013, O.A. No. 1292 (C) of 2013 and O.A. No. 1293 (C) of 2013 respectively, observed that it has already disposed of a good number of cases of the present nature in respect of land oustees, who were appointed under the Rehabilitation Scheme, in quashing the orders of disengagement which were issued in their favour and directed for their reengagement/ continuity in service. The tribunal further observed that since the opposite parties have already re-engaged the petitioners in their service, no order need be passed for their reengagement and they shall be entitled for the benefit of continuity in service. Accordingly, the tribunal directed the authorities to fix up seniority of the petitioners in the work charged establishment taking into account their earlier period of engagement and also the period of disengagement till the date of re-engagement as work charged employees. It was also directed that for all practical purposes, their services are to be treated as continuous one and accordingly the entire period shall be counted for the purpose of regularization of their services, taking into account their initial date of engagement and accordingly the benefits, as have been extended in favour of other similarly placed employees like the petitioners, shall also be extended in their favour, except the financial benefit during the period of their disengagement, keeping in view the settled principle of law “no work no pay”, even though the petitioners had no hand in the order of retrenchment.

5. In view of the aforesaid direction given by the tribunal vide orders passed in respective Original Applications, referred to above, now the petitioners have sought relief claiming back wages for the disengagement period, i.e. from 01.04.2002 till 03.09.2007 so far as the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 6277 of 2014 is concerned; from 01.04.2002 till 21.08.2007 so far as the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 6278 of 2014 is concerned; from 01.04.2002 till 26.08.2007 so far as the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 6279 of 2014 is concerned, as the same has been denied by the tribunal by applying the principle of “no work no pay”, even though consciously held that the petition