ORDER
Judgement Pronounced by Manmohan Singh Liberhan, CJ.
1. The appellants are the workers Union. The respondent, at one point of time, permitted the Union Office-bearers not to work in order to enable them to do the effective liaison work between the employees and the employer. Later they proposed to withdraw the order. The workers came up with the writ petition seeking issue of a writ of mandamus restraining the respondent not to withdraw the said facility. The learned single Judge relying on Secretary, T.N.E.B. Accounts Subordinate Union v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 1994 (1) LLJ 1128 (D.B.) dismissed the writ petition. The Division Bench applied the principle ‘no work no pay’. Apart from that there is no statutory provision by which an employer can be directed to pay to its employees without his doing any work. There is no gain-saying that the Union activity may be helpful in maintaining the industrial peace, but, at the same time it cannot be lost sight of that it may be acts of bitterness between the employer and the employee and the act of the employee is used not for betterment of relationship of employer and employee but to use it as an armt-wist-methodology and hinder the working of the employer.
2. It is for the employer to see the betterment of the institution and consider the special circumstances of the individual case. No mandamus can be issued as prayed for. Even under the common law of the land also the employer cannot be restrained from asking for work from its employee for which he is being paid.
3. There is no dispute with the pious wish expressed by the learned single Judge in the decision in Workmen of the Indian Bank rep. by Federation of Indian Bank Employees Union v. Management of the Indian Bank, 1994 (2) LLJ 497, but, no such law has been laid down in the said judgment as propoundes by the counsel and no mandamus be issued.
4. Learned counsel points out that the learned single Judge has observed that permitting the Union office-bearers not to function would be a misguided policy. The observation may be obiter dictum. This has no relevance with the above cited decision. It is well open to the employer to reconsider this policy and lay down the circumstances or as and when such exigencies arise when the employees-office-bearers of the Union not to work.
5. At this stage learned counsel for the respondent has brought to our notice that the special leave petition against the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Secretary, T.N.E.B. Accounts Subordinate Union v. Tamil
Nadu Electricity Board, 1994 (1) LLJ 1128 has been dismissed and the order of this Court has been confirmed. We are in agreement with the law laid down by the Division Bench and it has been affirmed by the Apex Court. The learned single Judge has in fact followed the same. We find no ground to interfere in this appeal, The writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently CMP No.2981 of 1998 is dismissed.