Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

G. Periyakaruppan v. The District Collector And Inspector Of Panchayats, Madurai And Others

G. Periyakaruppan v. The District Collector And Inspector Of Panchayats, Madurai And Others

(Before The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court)

Writ Petition No. 11393 Of 2012 | 16-10-2012

(Prayer: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to permit the petitioner to do his duty as Over Head Tank Operator at Vayalur Village Panchayat, Vayalur Post, Madurai District.)

ORDER

1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to permit the petitioner to do his duty as Over Head Tank Operator at Vayalur Village Panchayat, Vayalur Post, Madurai District.

2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was appointed as Over Head Tank Operator and posted at Vayalur Village Panchayat. He continued to perform his duties. The 4th respondent without any reason restrained the petitioner from performing the duties.

3. It is also submission of the the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has also not been paid salary since October-2011.

4. Notice in the writ petition was issued to the respondents.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents 3 & 4 fairly states that the petitioner is still on the roll as employee of respondent No.3, therefore, is at liberty to come and join duty on or before 01.11.2012. It is further stated that in case, petitioner returns to duty, he will be allotted work.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents 3 & 4, however, submitted that the petitioner may not be given backwages from October-2011 till the date of his reporting duty, on the principle of no work no pay

7. This contention of the learned counsel for the respondents 3 & 4 cannot be accepted, as the principle of no work no pay does not apply to the employee who is not allowed to work illegally by the employer, inspite of his willingness to work.

8. In view of the stand of the learned counsel for the respondents 3 & 4, the prayer qua issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the 3rd respondent to permit petitioner to do his duty, is rendered infructuous.

9. The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to join duty immediately, in any case not later than 01.11.2012, and pay to him the unpaid salary till the date of his rejoining duty, within one month of the receipt of certified copy of this order.

No costs.

Advocate List
  • For the Petitioner N. Sathish Babu, Advocate. For the Respondents S. Chandrasekar, GA.
Bench
  • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Eq Citations
  • (2013) 1 LLJ 765 (MAD)
  • LQ/MadHC/2012/5898
Head Note

Service Law — Pay — Unpaid salary — Entitlement to — Held, principle of 'no work no pay' does not apply to employee who is not allowed to work illegally by employer inspite of his willingness to work — Hence, respondents directed to permit petitioner to join duty immediately and pay to him unpaid salary till date of his rejoining duty — Constitution of India, Art. 21