The Madras High Court today imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 on a special officer of the district Cooperative Agro Services Society Ltd, squarely blaming him for not providing employment to 10 permanent employees and then denying them salary on the ground of "No Work No Pay" clause.
Justice S Vaidhyanathan of the Madurai bench said the cost should be paid to the Chief Justice fund, for being used to help people affected by the recent earthquake in Nepal.
In a hard-hitting observation, the judge said non-payment of wages to the employees was nothing but indirectly forcing them to die of starvation, which amounted to encouraging economic death by the government. The judge said it was open to the government to recover the loss caused to the society from the errant officer concerned.
The judge directed the officer to pay the wages due to the employees as on their last drawn wages within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order or pay 12 per cent interest in case of default till the entire amount was paid.
Directing the officer to pay the wages of the employees from September 2008 to July 2011, the judge said, "Once the person is recruited, it is obligatory on the part of the employer to provide employment." But if there was no work available, the officer could have retrenched the employees under provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act.
The officer had allowed the petitioners to sign the attendance register without allotment of any work. "The petitioners did not deny to execute the work," the judge said adding the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act would not apply in this case.
The petitioners contended that they worked in the society for 29 years. They did not receive their salary from September 2008-July 2011.
They filed a plea and the court ordered the Commissioner of Agriculture-cum-Registrar of Agro Engineering Services to consider the prayer. But the commissioner said he was not pay disbursement authority of the society, and every society was a body corporate, and functioned independently, and they had to earn for themselves to meet the salary related expenditure.
More over if they did not receive the salary they should approach the labour court first and then come to the Court, he said and contended that the writ plea was not maintainable. Besides the society was idle without any work. The petitioners had simply signed in the attendance register without working and they were not entitled for any pay, he said.
