Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Abhimanyu Laxman Kumbhar, was employed as a Junior Technician with the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd (MSEDCL). He was prosecuted for demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Pending the criminal trial, MSEDCL initiated a summary enquiry under Regulation 90 of its Employees' Service Regulations, 2005, and removed him from service with effect from 22.07.2008. His appeal against removal was rejected. However, in the criminal case, Special (ACB) Case No.2 of 2009, the Special Judge at Omerga acquitted him on 11.10.2013. The State Government challenged the acquittal by filing Criminal Appeal No.799 of 2014 before the Bombay High Court. When the petitioner sought reinstatement based on his acquittal, MSEDCL refused, citing the pendency of the appeal and the principle of 'no work no pay'. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition seeking reinstatement with back wages. The court framed the issue as whether an employer can deny wages to an employee during pendency of an appeal against acquittal on the 'no work no pay' principle. The court held that once an employee is acquitted, the basis for the summary enquiry and removal disappears. The acquittal remains operative until set aside by the appellate court. The employer cannot treat the employee as guilty merely because an appeal is pending. The principle of 'no work no pay' does not apply when the employee is willing to work but is prevented by the employer. The court directed MSEDCL to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of removal, subject to the outcome of the pending criminal appeal. The court also clarified that if the petitioner is ultimately convicted, MSEDCL may recover the wages paid.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Reinstatement after Acquittal - Back Wages - Acquittal in criminal case entitles employee to reinstatement with full back wages - Employer cannot deny wages on 'no work no pay' principle when employee is willing to work but prevented by employer - Held that once an employee is acquitted, the employer cannot continue to deny employment and wages merely because an appeal against acquittal is pending (Paras 2, 6-8). B) Service Law - Summary Enquiry - Regulation 90 of MSEDCL Employees' Service Regulations, 2005 - Summary enquiry under Regulation 90 is permissible only when employee is convicted - Once employee is acquitted, the basis for summary enquiry and removal disappears - Held that the removal order based on summary enquiry cannot survive acquittal (Paras 3, 6). C) Criminal Law - Appeal against Acquittal - Effect on Service - Pendency of appeal against acquittal does not revive conviction or justify denial of reinstatement - Held that acquittal remains operative until set aside by appellate court, and employer cannot treat employee as guilty during pendency of appeal (Paras 6-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an employer is justified in denying wages to an employee during pendency of appeal against his acquittal on the principle of 'no work no pay'
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, directing MSEDCL to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of removal, subject to the outcome of Criminal Appeal No.799 of 2014. If the petitioner is ultimately convicted, MSEDCL may recover the wages paid.
Law Points
- Acquittal in criminal case entitles employee to reinstatement with back wages
- principle of 'no work no pay' not applicable when employee is willing to work but prevented by employer
- Regulation 90 of MSEDCL Employees' Service Regulations 2005
