K.KANNAN, J. - (1.) THE issue involved in the case is whether it was permissible for an employer to claim wages for the period when he could not work on account of the fact that he had suffered a criminal court conviction which he had suffered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, but was later set aside in appeal by the High Court and when he was allowed to rejoin duty with continuity of service.
(2.) THROUGH the impugned order the petitioner was denied the wages on the ground of 'no work, no pay' principle, and the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that 'no work, no pay' principle could be applied in all cases where the person was abstaining from work and not in a case where he was prevented from work by the Management unjustly.
(3.) IN State of Haryana v Bani Singh Yadav -2005(1) RSJ 606 cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Division Bench of this Court was considering a case of employer in the army, who had denied to him the promotion when he was fully entitled to and the Court found that the Government could not take advantage of its own wrong by first not giving to him the promotion and later when he was found entitled, to deny to him the promotional scale by the fact that he did not work in the promotion post. In K.C. Rana v. State of Haryana - 2003(3) RSJ 200, the Division Bench was considering the case of exoneration of charges by an Enquiry Officer after discharge by a Criminal Court that there existed no case. This was an instance where there was no prejudice against the employee but when he was prevented unjustly from occupying the post. The above two cases are wholly different from a situation where the employee lands on a conviction after a full -fledged trial but the judgment is set aside in appeal by the higher court. It is not as if the employer had a choice or it could be stated that the employee was unjustly denied the work. The issue obtained a different treatment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. The Superintending Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board 1997 (1) SCT 824, that considered the case of a person, who had been involved in an offence under Section 302/34 IPC, who was convicted originally but later acquitted. The Court found that the petitioner in such a case must be taken as employee who had rendered himself disabled from rendering service and denied to him his wages during the period when he was not working. In Basanti Prasad v. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board and others 2009(3) SCT 761, on termination of services, retiral dues had been denied. The services had been terminated on account of conviction in a criminal court case. The conviction was set aside in appeal. The Court found that during the currency of conviction, the employee could not be given any employment and, therefore, denial of benefits during the period when he did not work was justification enough for not paying the salary. These two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court squarely answer the question and mark exception to the situations dealt with in the proceeding para.;