- (1.) THIS special appeal has been filed against the judgment dated July 12, 1999 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, whereby the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.
(2.) THE case as set up by the petitioner (appellant) in the writ petition is that the members of the petitioner Union were to participate in a demonstration to be held before the Parliament on March 27, 1987. For participating in this demonstration, casual leave was sought by the members of the petitioner Union. According to the petitioner, no order refusing the casual leave was made by the competent authority on the applications made for such leave. The case of the petitioner Union is that those employees who had applied for casual leave had, leave to their credit. They applied for leave being granted. The leave was sought for attending the demonstration. No order of rejection of the leave application has ever been made or communicated to the workmen.
(3.) THE respondents contested the writ petition and it was contended on behalf of the respondents that no leave was sanctioned to any of the employees/workmen who remained absent on March 27, 1987. In the absence of leave having been sanctioned, it is not just and proper for the employees to presume that the casual leave applied for has been sanctioned. No one can claim leave as a matter of right, may be that the leave was to the credit of the employee, Sanctioning of leave is the prerogative of the employer. It was contended on behalf of the respondents that the document Annexure 1 produced by the petitioner clearly shows that the authorities of the Bank had made it clear that those who will make themselves absent on March 27, 1987 will not be paid for that day if they choose to remain absent from the Bank. If in the existence of such a notice the members of the petitioner Union choose to neglect it then the answering respondents were within their rights to treat the members of the petitioner Union absent from duty and for that they were not required to be paid any salary on the principle of 'no work, no pay'. This action was not without the knowledge of the members of the petitioner Union because Annexure 1 had already been issued/passed.;