An employee who does not work and was not prevented from doing so is not entitled to wages.

The petitioner, a BMTC driver since 18 April 1987, applied for voluntary retirement on 29 January 2013, citing a medical condition, and thereafter did not attend work.

The Corporation’s Medical Board examined him on 13 November 2013, and a committee considered his case on 27 June 2014.

The Corporation paid retirement benefits of ₹6,00,000 on 14 February 2015 and leave encashment of ₹1,13,379 on 15 November 2014.

The petitioner claimed wages up to 13 November 2013 and interest for delayed payment of benefits.

The Labour Court dismissed his application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; he challenged that decision in this writ petition.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to wages for the period after applying for voluntary retirement when he did not attend work.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to interest on his retirement benefits and, if so, from what date.

The Court considered Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, under which a Labour Court may determine and compute a workman’s monetary entitlement.

It applied the principle of “no work, no pay” to the wage claim, holding that wages were not payable for the period in which the petitioner did not work and had not shown that the Corporation prevented him from performing his duties.

The judgment cites no precedent or specific statutory provision governing interest on the retirement benefits; it left that question for the Corporation to consider in accordance with law.

The petitioner did not work from 29 January 2013 through the consideration and acceptance of his voluntary-retirement request, and he did not establish that the Corporation had prevented him from working.

The Court therefore upheld the rejection of wages for that period under the “no work, no pay” principle.

As to interest, the parties disputed whether it ran from 13 November 2013, when the resignation was said to take effect, or only after the committee’s decision and the period prescribed under the scheme.

The Court did not resolve that dispute and reserved the issue for the Corporation’s determination.

The Court upheld the Labour Court’s decision on the wage claim but granted the petitioner liberty to submit a representation, with relevant documents, concerning interest on his retirement benefits within four weeks of receiving the order.

The Corporation was directed to consider the representation in accordance with law and communicate its decision within three months of its submission.