Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Milk Unionn Gurdaspur

IN T

Shiv Kumar Sha Milk Union, Gu

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

Mr

Mr SUDEEPTI SH

21.01.2003 pass the appeal file

12.11.2001 pass the suit of the a the appellant w work. BRIEF FACTS

2.

Procurement As designation was Assistant Grade

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS Da arma

VERSUS urdaspur and Others

ON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUD r. Rahul Aggarwal, Advocate for r. Bikramjit Singh Patwalia, Adv r. Abhishek Masih, Advocate for -.-

HARMA, J (Oral). e present appeal is preferred aga sed by the learned Additional D ed by the respondent against sed by the learned Civil Judge (J appellant along with interest @ 9 ould not be entitled to wages fo S e brief facts of the case are that t ssistant by the respondent on 0 s changed from Milk Procurem e-I and again on 02.02.1987, his

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-2747-2003 (O&M) ate of Decision : 02.05.2025

....Appellant

....Respondents EEPTI SHARMA r the appellant. vocate and r respondent Nos. 1 to 3. ainst the judgment and decree da District Judge, Gurdaspur, wher the judgment and decree da Jr. Division), Gurdaspur, decree 9%, was modified to the extent t for the period for which he did the appellant was appointed as M

02.09.1979. In the year 1983, ment Assistant to Milk Procurem s designation was changed as M

eby eing that not Milk his ment

Procurement Su Gurdaspur in M was suspended v on 19.04.1995.

30.09.1996. He Then, he filed c stating therein following the p was set aside by and decree date service benefits of his suspensio

3.

12.11.2001, whi would be entitl entitled to wage

4.

Hen SUBMISSION

5.

Lea Appellate Court of learned Trial wages for the pe dismissal order

6.

Per the learned Firs

upervisor. In the year 1981, Milk Union, Gurdaspur. While vide order dated 11.04.1995 and Thereafter, he was dismisse e filed departmental appeal wh ivil suit before the learned Civil that the dismissal order dated rinciples of natural justice. The y the learned Civil Judge (Jr. D ed 12.11.2001 and the responden alongwith 9% interest and to re on. e respondents filed appeal again ich was dismissed with modifica ed to re-instatement with conti es for the period for which he did nce, the present appeal. OF THE LEARNED COUNS arned counsel for the appellan t has wrongly modified the judg l Court by holding that the app eriod for which he did not work is set aside, the appellant would r contra, learned counsel for res st Appellate Court has rightly he

the appellant was transferred working with the respondents, d charge-sheet was served upon h ed from service vide order da hich was dismissed on 10.04.19 Judge (Jr. Division), Gurdaspur d 30.09.1996 was passed with e dismissal order dated 30.09.19 ivision), Gurdaspur, vide judgm nts were directed to release all e-instate the appellant from the d nst the judgment and decree da ation to the extent that the appell inuity of service but would not d not work. EL FOR THE PARTIES nt contends that the learned F gment and decree dated 12.11.20 pellant would not be entitled to . He further contends that once be entitled to back-wages as we spondent Nos. 1 to 3 contends t eld that the appellant would not

d at , he him

¶997r by hout ment date lant t be First ll. that

entitled to wage No Pay'. There

7.

I h record of the cas

8.

A p service on 30.0 dated 30.09.199 was decreed in h judgment and d instated into ser wages for the pe

9.

In respondent was the year 2012.

10.

Second Appeal, admitted by this

(a) and voi

(b) den ord

es for the period he has not wor efore, he prays that the present ap have heard learned counsel for se. perusal of the record shows that

9.1996. He filed departmental 96, which was dismissed on 10.0 his favour. The appeal filed by decree dated 21.01.2003 to the rvice with continuity of service eriod for which he did not work. compliance of judgment an re-instated and retired after atta e substantial questions of law , as per order dated 16.08.2005 s Court are as follows:- Whether an employee can b d wages while holding that the or id and inoperative? Whether a person whose ord nied wages and consequential be pay' even though he is kept ou der of the management.?

rked on the principle of 'No W ppeal be dismissed. the parties and perused the wh t the appellant was dismissed fr appeal against the dismissal or

04.1997. He filed civil suit, wh the respondents was modified v e extent that the appellant be but he would not be entitled to

d decree dated 21.01.2003, aining the age of superannuation w involved in the present Regu 5, whereby the present appeal w e denied the consequential bene rder of his termination was null der of termination is set aside can enefits on the principle of 'no w ut of the service due to the wro

Work hole rom rder hich vide re-n in ular was efits and n be work

(c) to t of t

11.

Ad

30.09.1996 to b further appeal a learned Additio respondents wa learned Civil Ju and the appellan both the Courts, i.e. from 30.09. he was re-instate

12.

Ho [1991(4) SCC 1 cases where emp fault of his. Rele "24 "no ben him only As emp

Whether in view of the settl take benefit of its own wrongs, benefits even though they were the appellant? dmittedly, both the Courts h e illegal and unjustifiable. Furth against the judgment and decre onal District Judge, Gurdaspur, as dismissed to the extent of setti dge (Jr. Division), Gurdaspur. O nt is held entitled to re-instatem , it would be unjustified to depri 1996 (when he was dismissed f ed in service). n'ble Supreme Court in Unio 109], held that the rule of 'no wo mployee is willing to work but is evant portion of the judgment is

¶4It was further contended on o work no pay". Hence a perso nefits of a post the duties of whic m to do so is against the element ly for the work he has done and against this, it was pointed ployees, that on many occasion

ed law that nobody can be allow the management could be gran e at fault in terminating the servi have held dismissal order da her, the respondents did not file ee dated 21.01.2003 passed by whereby the appeal filed by ing aside the dismissal order by Once the dismissal order is set as ment with continuity of service ive him of the wages for that per from service) till 21.01.2003 (wh on of India Vs. K.V.Jankiram ork no pay' is not applicable to kept away by the authorities for reproduced as under:- their behalf that the normal rul on cannot be allowed to draw ch he has not discharged. To al tary rule that a person is to be p d not for the work he has not do out on behalf of the concern ns even frivolous proceedings

wed nted ices any side by riod hen man r no le is low paid one. ned

ins spe con are he unj

¶25beh app alth aut rem offe inap

¶26Tri visi of t dat disc whe exa

tituted at the instance of inter ecific object of denying the p ncerned is made to suffer both m e multiplied when he is also erefore, at the end of such sufferi has to be restored to all the ben justly.

We are not much impressed half of the authorities. The norm plicable to cases such as the hough he is willing to work thorities for no fault of his. This mains away from work for his o fered to him. It is for this rea applicable to such cases.

We are, therefore, broadly in ibunal that when an employee ereby that he is not 'found bla ited with the penalty even of cen the salary of the higher post alo te on which he would have no ciplinary/ criminal proceedings ere the proceedings, whether ample, delayed at the instance of e disciplinary proceedings or ac

rested persons, sometimes with promotion due, and the emplo mental agony and privations wh placed under suspension. Wh ings, he comes out with a clean b nefits from which he was kept aw d by the contentions advanced mal rule of "no work no pay" is present one where the emplo is kept away from work by s is not a case where the emplo own reasons, although the work ason that F.R. 17(1) will also n agreement with the finding of is completely exonerated mean ameworthy in the least and is nsure, he has to be given the ben ong with the other benefits from rmally been promoted but for s. However, there may be cas disciplinary or criminal, are, of the employee or the clearance cquittal in the criminal proceedi

h a oyee hich hen, bill, way d on not oyee oyee k is be f the ning not nefit ses' for e in

is w due circ pow it. L exh may they emp sho und inte

13.

Ho Haryana Vidyu as under:- "3. we

¶31con hav

1.1 in res to

with benefit of doubt or on acco e to the acts attributable cumstances, the concerned aut wer to decide whether the emplo e intervening period and if he do Life being complex, it is not po haustively all the circumstances y become necessary. To ignore ey exist and lay down' an inflexib ployee is exonerated in disc ould be entitled to all salary dermine discipline in the adm erests." n'ble Supreme Court in the c ut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Having given our thoughtfu are satisfied, that after the im

12.2002 was set aside, the nsequential benefits. The fault ving utilised the services of th .2003 to 31.12.2005. Had the a service, he would have readi trained him from rendering his

31.12.2005, the respondent ca

ount of non-availability of evide to the employee etc. In su thorities must be vested with oyee at all deserves any salary oes, the extent to which he deser ossible to anticipate and enumer s under which such considerat however, such circumstances wh ble rule that in every case when ciplinary/criminal proceedings for the intervening period is ministration and jeopardise pub case of Shobha Ram Raturi d Others [2016 (16) SCC 663] h l consideration to the controver mpugned order of retirement da appellant was entitled to lies with the respondents in he appellant for the period fr appellant been allowed to contin ily discharged his duties. Hav services with effect from 1.1.20 nnot be allowed to press the

ence uch for rves rate tion hen n an he s to blic Vs. held rsy, all not rom nue ving

ser ple

¶4imp den

¶31set

¶5thre cal fur

In Supreme Court, judgment are a Since the dismis held entitled to

21.01.2003.

15.

respondents wer the calculation a

21.01.2003.

16.

Thi Patwalia, Advoc salary record fr period from 30

rving plea of denying him wages ea of the principle of "no work no For the reasons recorded her pugned order passed by the Hi nying wages to the appellant,

12.2005 deserves to be set asid aside. The appellant shall be paid ee months from today. His retria lculated on the basis thereof, an ther period of three months. view of the above referred to , the substantial questions of la answered in favour of the appe ssal order is set aside by both th wages along with interest @ 9% e present appeal pertains to re directed to produce the servic along with 9% interest of wages is Court appreciate the effort cate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 w rom the year 1996 till 2003 an .09.1996 to 21.01.2003 along w

s for the period in question, on o pay". reinabove, we are satisfied, that igh Court, to the limited extend for the period from 1.1.2003 de. The same is accordingly her wages for the above period wit al benefits, if necessary, shall be nd shall be released to him withi o law laid down by the Hon' aw as referred to in para-9 of t ellant and against the responde he Courts, therefore, the appellan % for the period from 30.09.1996 o the year 2003, therefore, ce/salary record of the appellant s for the period from 30.09.1996 ts made by Mr. Bikramjit Sin who produced before this Court nd the calculation of salary for with interest @ 9%. As per sal

d of 3 to reby thin re-in a 'ble this nts. nt is 6 to and 6 to ngh

record, the calc shared with the his salary record

17.

In v decree dated 2 Gurdaspur, to t appellant, for th and decree date Gurdaspur is up

18.

Sin the year 2025 appellant by wa deposit Rs.10,43 the account of th of this judgmen details to the res

19.

Dec

20.

Pen

May 02, 2025 tripti

Wh

Wh

culation comes to be Rs.10,43, learned counsel for the appellan d. view of the above, the present ap

21.01.2003 passed by the le the extent of denying wages a he period from 30.09.1996 to 21 ed 12.11.2001 passed by the l pheld. nce, the present appeal pertains i.e. after 22 years, therefore, t y of filing the execution applicat 3,451/- as per calculations subm he appellant within a period of tw nt. Further, the appellant is dir spondents. cree-sheet be drawn. nding applications, if any, also st

(SU

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes

,451/-. The same calculation w nt, who stated it to be correct, as ppeal is allowed. The judgment arned Additional District Jud along with interest @ 9% to .01.2003 is set aside and judgm earned Civil Judge (Jr. Divisio to the year 2003 and is decided to avoid further harassment to tion, the respondents are directed mitted by them before this Cour wo months from the date of pass rected to provide his bank acco tand disposed of. UDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE ing

was per and dge, ment on), d in d to rt in sing