The sole ground on which the Tribunal has proceeded to draw its finding that the deceased employee had attended duty as Crew Controller at Kanpur for the period from 8.5.2006 to 20.9.2007 is that in paragraph no. 4(xvi) of the OA, it was stated that during this period of 8.5.2006 to 20.9.2007, the deceased employee had worked as Crew Controller at Kanpur in compliance of the order dated 2.8.2005. The said order dated 2.8.2005 stated that the deceased employee was directed to join as Crew Controller at Kanpur with effect from 2.8.2005. He continued to work till 9.9.2008 when he was transferred to Allahabad as Crew Controller. However, in reply to paragraph no. 4 (xvi) of the OA, paragraph No. 36 of the counter reply did not specifically contradict the contention in the O.A that the deceased employee had attended the duty as Crew Controller at Kanpur during the period in question and no document to prove otherwise was furnished by the respondent. On the other hand, the Tribunal further states that the applicant had challenged the order dated 2.8.2005 of the respondent which clearly showed that the deceased employee had joined the duty as Crew Controller with effect from 2.8.2005 after his punishment of removal from service was modified by the order dated 26.5.2005 of the appellate authority modifying the punishment to stoppage of two increments. Therefore, the Tribunal was of the view that the deceased employee had attended the duty as a Crew Controller at Kanpur for the period from 8.5.2006 to 20.9.2007 and there was nothing on record to show that there was any period of unauthorized absence on the part of the deceased employee from 8.5.2006 to 20.9.2007 to substantiate the stand of “no work no pay” of the petitioner
