Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ashok s/o Pralhad Meshram, was employed as a Deputy Engineer with the Nashik Municipal Corporation, Nashik. He filed a suit (Regular Civil Suit No.61 of 2009) claiming salary for the period from 1985 to 1990, alleging that he was not paid despite being ready and willing to work. The trial court dismissed the suit on 08 April 2009, holding that the appellant had not proved that he actually worked during that period. The appellant appealed to the District Judge-1, Bhandara, in Regular Civil Appeal No.14 of 2010, which was also dismissed on 24 June 2013, confirming the trial court's judgment. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present second appeal before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The High Court noted that the matter came up for hearing on an application for early hearing (Civil Application (CAS) No.374 of 2014). The court observed that the appellant had not worked during the claimed period and that there was no order of reinstatement with back wages. The court held that the principle of 'no work no pay' applies and that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving that he actually worked. The court also noted that no substantial question of law arose in the second appeal, as the findings of fact were concurrent and based on evidence. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed at the admission stage itself.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Salary for Unauthorised Absence - No Work No Pay - The appellant, an employee of Nashik Municipal Corporation, claimed salary for the period 1985-1990 during which he was absent from duty without authorization. The courts below dismissed his suit. Held that an employee who does not work is not entitled to salary for that period, and the burden to prove that he actually worked lies on the employee. (Paras 1-5) B) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - The High Court, while hearing a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, must be satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved. In the present case, no substantial question of law arose as the findings of fact by the lower courts were concurrent and based on evidence. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to salary for the period he did not work and whether the courts below erred in dismissing his suit.
Final Decision
Second Appeal dismissed at admission stage. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- No work no pay
- Burden of proof on employee to show he worked
- Second appeal limited to substantial question of law
