No Work, No Pay' Not Applicable If Employer Prevents Employee From Working; Kerala HC Orders FACT To Pay Full Salary To Medically Unfit Employee

Kerala HC: 'No Work, No Pay' Inapplicable When Employee Is Prevented from Duty by Employer

Kochi: In a significant ruling on service law, the Kerala High Court has held that the principle of 'no work, no pay' cannot be invoked against an employee who was prevented from performing her duties by the employer's actions. Justice Harisankar V. Menon set aside an order by Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Limited (FACT) that had denied salary to a senior employee for a period she was unable to work on medical grounds following a transfer.

The court directed FACT to pay full salary and allowances for the disputed period of over 17 months, along with 4% interest, and to make the corresponding Provident Fund contributions.

Background of the Case

The case involved two connected writ petitions. The primary petition was filed by Ms. B.K. Geetha , a retired General Manager at FACT, who challenged the company's decision to treat her absence from March 4, 2015, to August 25, 2016, as leave without pay.

Ms. Geetha , who belongs to the Scheduled Caste community, was transferred from Kochi to a project site in Nagaland in 2014. She contended that the hilly terrain aggravated her pre-existing medical conditions, including diabetes and vertigo. Her requests for extended medical leave were met with resistance, and the company referred her to a Government Medical Board.

The Medical Board, in its report dated June 20, 2015, certified her as fit to resume duties but specified it should be in "places other than hilly areas." Despite this, and after dropping disciplinary proceedings initiated against her, FACT denied her salary for the period, citing the 'no work, no pay' rule.

In a related petition, several senior FACT officials, who were Ms. Geetha 's superiors, challenged the jurisdiction of the Kerala State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to entertain a harassment complaint filed by her, which stemmed from the same service dispute.

Arguments and Court's Analysis

Ms. Geetha ’s counsel argued that she was effectively prevented from working due to the company's refusal to acknowledge her medical condition, which was validated by the Medical Board. The company's contradictory stance was highlighted—it had previously acknowledged the Nagaland site as "hilly, rugged and mountainous" for granting special allowances but denied it was a hilly area when considering her leave request.

The counsel for FACT maintained that transfer is a management prerogative and that an employee cannot claim salary for a period of absence without sanctioned leave.

Justice Harisankar V. Menon observed several inconsistencies in the employer's actions: -

Contradictory Stand: The court noted the company's admission of the difficult terrain in an internal communication (Ext.P24) while rejecting the employee's claim on the same grounds. -

Reliance on Medical Board: By referring Ms. Geetha to the Medical Board, the company implied it would be bound by its findings. The subsequent refusal to act on the Board’s clear recommendation was deemed improper. -

Dropping Disciplinary Action: The unconditional dropping of disciplinary proceedings for her absence indicated that her absence was not considered willful misconduct.

Key Legal Principles Applied

The High Court held that the facts of the case rendered the 'no work, no pay' principle inapplicable. The court's reasoning was anchored in established Supreme Court precedents.

"I am of the opinion that, though transfer is not the right of the employee, the question arising for consideration in the case at hand is entirely different... When that be so, it goes without saying that the 2nd respondent admits that the opinion of the Medical Board would decide the claim."

The judgment cited: -

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dayanand Chakrawarty [(2013) 7 SCC 595]: The 'no work, no pay' principle does not apply where an employee is prevented by the employer from performing their duty. -

Shiv Nandan Mahto v. State of Bihar [(2013) 11 SCC 626]: An employee who is illegally kept out of service is entitled to full back wages.

The court concluded that Ms. Geetha was effectively prevented from working by the employer's actions, making her eligible for full salary for the period.

Decision on the Two Petitions

1. Geetha 's Petition (WP(C) No. 35517/2019): - The court allowed the petition, quashing FACT's order that denied her salary. - It directed FACT to sanction her leave on medical grounds and pay her full salary and allowances from March 4, 2015, to August 25, 2016, with 4% interest. - The company was also ordered to remit the PF contributions for this period. - The court, however, rejected her prayer for compensation for harassment, stating that the dispute arose from official orders and could not be attributed to targeted harassment based on her caste.

2. Management's Petition (WP(C) No. 32945/2017): - The court allowed this petition, quashing the proceedings initiated by the State SC/ST Commission. - It ruled that the Commission does not have jurisdiction over service matters, which must be adjudicated through appropriate legal channels like the High Court or tribunals. The court observed that the complaint was merely a reproduction of the service grievances and did not contain specific allegations of caste-based harassment that would fall under the Commission's purview.