Unsupported allegations of absence cannot justify withholding a daily-rated employee’s salary or denying work.

The respondent, a daily-rated skilled labourer employed by the Municipal Council since 2011, claimed that his salary had been withheld from September 2022 and that, from November 2023, he was prevented from marking attendance without notice or hearing.

The Council maintained that he had stopped attending work and that his name was removed from the muster roll on the basis of attendance records and officials’ reports.

The Single Judge found that the Council had not established voluntary absence and directed it to pay the respondent’s salary from September 2022 and permit him to resume work.

The Council appealed; the Division Bench dismissed the appeal.

1. Whether the Council had established that the respondent voluntarily stopped attending work, such that withholding his salary and removing him from the muster roll was justified.

2. Whether the Single Judge’s directions to pay salary from September 2022 and permit the respondent to resume work warranted interference in the intra-court appeal.

The appellants invoked the principle of “no work, no pay” and relied on A. Manjula Bhashini v. Managing Director, A.P. Women’s Cooperative Finance Corporation Ltd., (2009) 8 SCC 431, concerning abandonment or unauthorised absence of muster-roll employees.

They also argued that disputed questions of fact should be determined by the Labour Court rather than in writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

The Division Bench did not cite or expressly apply a statutory provision or precedent; its decision turned on whether the Council had produced reliable material substantiating the alleged absence.

The Council’s allegation of continuous absence was unsupported by an attendance register, inspection report, or other contemporaneous verification.

The Court noted that, despite a prior complaint alleging absence, a salary slip had been prepared up to 31 August 2022, and the Council had not explained this circumstance or disclosed whether action was taken against the officer who prepared it.

The President’s letter identifying the respondent as absent, without supporting records or verification, was insufficient to establish voluntary abandonment of duty.

The Court therefore upheld the Single Judge’s finding that the respondent had been prevented from working and that the Council’s action was arbitrary.

It dismissed the writ appeal and affirmed the direction to pay the respondent’s salary from September 2022 and permit him to resume his duties; there was no order as to costs.