No Work No Pay Principle Inapplicable When Employee Is Kept Away Due to Employer's Act: J&K High Court

A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani observed that in such circumstances, employees cannot be denied salary for the period they remained out of service.

These observations came in an appeal filed by the J&K Horticulture Produce Marketing and Processing Corporation (J&K HPMC) against the order of the Writ Court directing the Corporation to release pending salaries to the employees, the respondents, along with consequential benefits within eight weeks.

The controversy arose when the Government formulated a scheme offering voluntary retirement (VRS) to employees of various State undertakings, extended to the employees of J&K HPMC as well. Under Clause 5(iv) of the Scheme, it was mandated that benefits were to be paid within 60 days of accepting voluntary retirement, subject to clearance of any dues by the employee.

Responding to the scheme, the respondents offered voluntary retirement, which was accepted by the appellant Corporation with effect from April 10, 2013. However, formal orders were issued only on May 17, 2013. Despite acceptance, the promised dues were not paid within the stipulated period, forcing the respondents to approach the High Court through a writ petition seeking payment of their benefits.

During the proceedings, it emerged that the respondents were taken back into service, following an order of the Writ Court. However, the respondents subsequently amended their writ petition to claim salary for the period during which they remained out of service, a period attributable to the employer's failure to honor its commitments.

The Division Bench, after considering the submissions and the record, found that the respondents were kept away from service purely because of the appellant Corporation's inaction. It noted that after opting for VRS and the acceptance thereof, the respondents were left in limbo without payment of benefits and hence the Corporation's argument that the principle of "no work no pay" applied was thus rejected.

The Court emphasized that the "no work no pay" principle can be invoked only when an employee remains absent due to his own fault, omission, or voluntary act. However, where an employee is kept out of work due to the employer's actions, the employee is entitled to salary for the period of forced non-employment, the bench underscored.

The court remarked, "The principle of 'no work no pay' can be put into operation when the employee remains out of service because of his own act/omission/fault but when an employee is kept away from the work by any act or omission on the part of the employer, the employee cannot be denied salary on the principle of 'no work no pay.'"

In order to solidify its reasoning, the Division Bench relied on Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah, (2007) 7 SCC 689 wherein the Supreme Court had clearly held that when an employee is prevented from discharging his duties for no fault of his, the doctrine of "no work no pay" would not apply.

The High Court found that the situation efore it resonated fully with the factual matrix discussed in Muddaiah's case.

“.. the learned Writ Court has arrived at the conclusion that the respondents were kept away from work by the authorities after accepting their offer of voluntary retirement and, as such, they are entitled to salary for the intervening period. There is no illegality in the judgment passed by the learned writ court”, the court concluded and dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: J&K HORTICULTURE PRODUCE MARKETING AND PROCESSING CORPORATION Vs ABDUL RAZAK MALLA & OTHERS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 167

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment