years. We are of the view that the findings recorded by the Labour Court and concurred in by the Industrial Tribunal, when not disturbed in any manner by the Single Judge or said to have been erroneous at any place, perhaps it was required to be viewed from that angle as the learned Single Judge has also gone on considering the broader aspect of time lag and the principle of “No Work No Pay”, which in our view, in the instant case, would not be applicable as the order of termination is 26.11.1999 and immediately the workman appears to have approached the Court by way of petition on 1.2.2000, as could be seen from record. Therefore, time has not been in any manner wasted by workman in seeking remedy against the order, which was undoubtedly penal in nature and was passed without following due procedure of law. The findings are recorded about order of termination being penal and passed without following due procedure of law, the question of “No Work No Pay” would not arise, as it was not a case of employer before the Court that the workman abandoned his job and did not return for performing his duties and after sizeable lapse of time moved the Court for seeking relief. In other words, when there was no case of abandonment even pleaded or proved and when the workman’s termination was found to be penal without following due procedure of law, it can well be said that the workman was illegally deprived of his entitlement to discharge his duties and earn his wages. Therefore “No Work No Pay” in our view, was erroneously pressed into service, which has rendered the judgment erroneous and, therefore, the same cannot be sustained.
