there was absolutely no justification on the
part of the Industrial Tribunal to deny back
wages to the respondent even when it is found
that the order of termination is void ab initio
in law for non-compliance of the mandatory
provisions under Section 6-N of the Act. Keeping
in view the fact that the period of termination
was in the year 1975 and the matter has been
unnecessarily litigated by the employer by
contesting the matter before the Industrial
Tribunal as well as the High Court and this
Court for more than 40 years, and further, even
after the Award/order of reinstatement was
passed by the Industrial Tribunal directing the
employer to give him the post equivalent to the
post of Tube-well Operator, the same has been
denied to him by offering the said post which is
not equivalent to the post of Tube-well Operator
and thereby, attributing the fault on the
respondent for non reporting to the post offered
to him, which is once again unjustified on the
part of the employer.
Thus, the principle “no work no pay” as
observed by this Court in the catena of cases
does not have any significance to the fact
situation of the present case as the termination
of the services of the workman from the post of
Tube-well Operator is erroneous in law in the
first place, as held by us in view of the above
stated reasons.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2381 OF 2007
STATE OF U.P ………APPELLANT
Vs.
CHARAN SINGH ………RESPONDENT
Citation;(2015)8 SCC150
