IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2011 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1933 WA.No. 1878 of 2006() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.15652/2003 Dated 14/12/2005 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER IN WPC ------------------------------------------------------ P.A.PAILY, CONDUCTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.ABRAHAM SHRI P.BENJAMIN PAUL,SC, KSRTC RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN WPC ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE AND STATISTICS, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KOTTAYAM. SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC, KSRTC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/05/2011, THE COURT ON 10/06/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============================== W.A. NO. 1878 OF 2006 =================== Dated this the 10th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T Antony Dominic, J. The petitioner in WP(C) No.15652/03 is the appellant. 2. The appellant was a Conductor in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, the 1st respondent. On 26/6/93, he applied for leave till 31/7/93 on ground of sickness. On expiry of the leave, he applied for extension of leave till 14/10/93. Meanwhile, he was admitted in the hospital on 27/7/93 and on discharge, he reported for duty on 15/10/93. However, he was not permitted to resume duty and was eventually admitted to duty only w.e.f. 14/7/94. 3. Meanwhile, on the ground that the appellant was unauthorisedly absent from duty, he was issued Ext.P2 charge sheet. An enquiry was held. Suffice it to state that in the report submitted by the enquiry officer, the appellant was not found guilty. Thereupon Ext.P8 show cause notice was issued enclosing Ext.P9 enquiry report whereby the appellant was called upon to WA No.1878/06 : 2 : show cause why the disciplinary authority shall not disagree with the findings of the enquiry officer and why he shall not be found guilty and punished accordingly. He submitted his representation, but however was issued Ext.P11 order by which punishment of censure was imposed and his period of absence was ordered to be treated as eligible leave. 4. He filed an appeal to the Managing Director, a copy of which is Ext.P12, which was rejected by Ext.P13 order. Appellant filed revision before the Appellate Tribunal, which was also rejected by Ext.P14 order. In the writ petition, appellant challenged Exts.P11, P13 and P14 orders. 5. By judgment dated 14th of December, 2005, the learned Judge disposed of the writ petition upholding the punishment and directing that the leave period will qualify for pension. In other words, the appellant was denied wages for the period from 15/10/93 to 14/7/94. Seeking review of the said judgment, appellant filed RP No.76/06, which was disposed of by order dated 30th of March, 2006 clarifying that the period from WA No.1878/06 : 3 : 15/10/93 to 14/7/94 will also be reckoned for the purpose of time bound increments and that the appellant will not get salary for the said period. It is aggrieved by the judgment and the order in the review petition that this writ appeal is filed. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the appellant having reported for duty and was not permitted to resume duties, is entitled to be paid wages for the period from 15/10/93 till 14/7/94 when he was admitted for duty. It is stated that the principle no work no pay, has no application in a case of this nature where the appellant was willing to resume work but was not permitted to resume work. 7. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the respondents sought to justify the order of the learned Single Judge by contending that the appellant having not worked during the aforesaid period is not entitled to be paid wages. 8. We have considered the submissions made. 9. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to be paid wages during the WA No.1878/06 : 4 : period from 15/10/93 to 14/7/94. Respondents have no case that the appellant did not report for duty on 15/10/93 as claimed by the appellant. The respondent also has no case that at any time before 14/7/94 the appellant was offered employment but did not resume duties. Thus, we proceed on the basis that though the appellant reported for duty on 15/10/93, he was not permitted to resume duties and that the appellant was admitted to duty only on 15/7/94. 10. On 15/10/93, when the appellant reported for duty, if according to the respondents, the appellant was liable for disciplinary proceedings, respondents had the option of initiating proceedings against the appellant and placing the appellant under suspension. However, respondents have no case that the appellant was placed under suspension. Therefore, if the appellant was not placed under suspension, he being an employee on the roll of the Corporation, was entitled to have been admitted to duty on 15/10/93 when he reported for duty. This was not done by the respondents and it is obvious that it WA No.1878/06 : 5 : was only for reasons which are attributable to the respondents that the appellant could not resume duty on 15/10/93 until he was admitted for duty. If that be so, respondents cannot contend that the appellant having not worked during the aforesaid period should be denied wages. 11. Further, the respondents having prevented the appellant from discharging his duties, cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own default and deny wages to its employee. As held by the Apex Court in Union of India v. K.V.Jankiraman {(1991) 4 SCC 109}, the principle, no work no pay is not applicable to cases where an employee who is willing to work is kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of the employee. The facts of this case are one to which the aforesaid principle laid down by the Apex Court is fully applicable. Therefore, we are unable to sustain the order of the learned Single Judge denying wages to the appellant for the period from 15/10/93 to 14/7/94. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, we modify the judgment of WA No.1878/06 : 6 : the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.15652/03 and the order in RP No.76/06 and hold that the appellant is entitled to be paid wages for the period from 15/10/93 to 14/7/94. This the respondents shall pay as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 months of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ appeal will stand disposed of as above. J.CHELAMESWAR CHIEF JUSTICE. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE. Rp