The counsel Sh. Puneet Jindal would argue, therefore, that in pursuance of the said order, they would be entitled to the arrears as if they remained in the job and their services were never terminated. If the case had proceeded to an adjudication on merits by this Court and the respondents have resisted the issue of departmentalization then, during all the period when they had not been taken back in service for any unjustifiable cause, it should have been possible for the Court to allow for the direction in the interim order to prevail. On the other hand, in view of the inter-Union rivalries, the employees of the respective Unions staking priority for departmentalizing the members of the respective Unions and also on account of the dispute regarding the seniority inter se, the adjudication had to come through recommendations of various Committees. Even at the time of argument, applications have been filed by various employees seeking for permission to be called by the Screening Committee and for extension of time for making personal appearance to enlist themselves as employees. Several of the petitioners have been taken back in service, some have died and some have migrated to some other places. Such of those persons, who had not presented themselves before the Screening Committee for various reasons including want of knowledge of the cut off date fixed by this Court for enlistment to be registered as employees, the matter has not come to a finality yet. The principal of “no work no pay” should at all times be relevant in situations where the employer was not at
