Rahul (appellant) was working as a Clerk in a Nationalised Bank posted at MG Road Branch, Panipat. He joined the branch on 1st November, 2016 and was assigned the duties of cashier. As per appellant he attended the duty

Entitlement to Wages for 11th and 12th November 2018: Section 7 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 allows deductions from the wages of an employee on the account of absence from duty. Further, a Section 9(1) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, provides for deductions for absence from duty. It states that the deductions may be made under clause (b) of sub section 7 only on account of the absence of an employed person from place or places where, by the terms of his employment, he is required to work, such absence being for the whole or any part of which he is required to work. So, appellant is not entitled for both days' wages, as it is based on the well-known principle of Payment of Wages Act "No work no pay". Hence appellant had not worked at all during the period of his absence. It is abundantly clear that the person who has not left his desk but also office' premises is certainly one who is absent form duty and makes himself liable for deduction of wages. (Prakash Chandra Johri Vs. Indian Overseas Bank, 1984 sec). Since the question is silent about the 12th November, 2018, hence, if appellant was absent from the duty on 12th November, 2018, he is not entitled to be paid or if he was not absent, he will be entitled to be paid the wages. Legality and Justification of Strike: The strike was not legal and justified as they did not comply the provisions of Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which are mentioned here: No person employed in a public utility service shall go on strike in breach of contract- without giving to the employer notice of strike, as hereinafter provided, within six weeks before striking; or within fourteen days of giving such notice; or before the expiry of the date of strike specified in any such notice as aforesaid; or during the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a conciliation officer and seven days after the conclusion of such proceedings. A strike or lock-out shall be illegal if it is commenced or declared in contravention of Section 22 or Section 23. So, in the given case, the strike is in contravention of the above provisions of Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hence it is an illegal strike. In the case of Indian General Navigation and Rly. Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1960) I L.L.J. 13, the Supreme Court held that the law has made a distinction between a strike which is illegal and one which is not, but it has not made distinction between an illegal strike which may be said to be justifiable and one which is not justifiable. This distinction is not warranted by the Act and is wholly misconceived, specially in the case of employees in a public utility service. Therefore, an illegal strike is always unjustified.