JUDGMENT : Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is defendants' regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25.8.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge [Junior Division], Faridabad and judgment and decree dated 13.9.2012 passed by learned District Judge, Faridabad. Brahmjeet, the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is entitled to the resultant benefits of regularization of his services as R.W.M. and A.L.M. with effect from the date of regularization of his services including the seniority and the monetary benefits with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum with mandatory injunction directing the defendants to disburse the said benefits to the plaintiff. The suit of the plaintiff has been decreed by learned Civil Judge [Junior Division] Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 25.8.2011 declaring him to be entitled to all the resultant benefits of regularization of services as R.W.M. and A.L.M. w.e.f. 17.5.1994, the date of passing of the award including seniority and monetary benefits alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the due date with directions to the defendants to disburse the above said amount to the plaintiff within a period of three months from the date of the order. 2. The appeal preferred by the defendants failed before learned District Judge, Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 13.9.2012. 3. The plaintiff was appointed as a daily wager by the defendants with effect from 30.9.1981. The defendants terminated his services in an illegal and arbitrary manner. The plaintiff approached the Labour Court, Faridabad who had ordered his reinstatement with continuity of service. During the years 1993 and 2005, Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana circulated a number of policies for regularization of ad-hoc/contractual/daily wage employees. The plaintiff fulfilled all the terms and conditions of the aforesaid policies. He made a number of requests for regularization of his services but the defendants did not pay any heed to his requests. The plaintiff then approached this court by way of a writ petition which was allowed vide order dated 6.4.2006 issuing direction to the defendants to take a final decision on the claim of the plaintiff for regularization within a period of two months of the receipt of a certified copy of the order. The plaintiff then approached this court by way of a writ petition which was allowed vide order dated 6.4.2006 issuing direction to the defendants to take a final decision on the claim of the plaintiff for regularization within a period of two months of the receipt of a certified copy of the order. Defendants ultimately regularized the services of the plaintiff as R.W.M. w.e.f. 5.5.1993 and as A.L.M. w.e.f. 15.1.2001 vide order dated 26.6.2006 and fixed the seniority of the plaintiff, but did not pay the resultant benefits arising on regularization of his services. The plaintiff requested the defendants to pay him the resultant benefits but of no use and hence, he filed the suit after serving a legal notice on the defendants. 4. The defendants resisted the suit. They have admitted that the plaintiff was appointed as a daily wage worker w.e.f. 10.6.1980. It is further admitted that his services were terminated on 7.11.1984 and that he was reinstated in service in the light of the award dated 17.5.1994 passed by Labour Court, Faridabad with continuity of service without back wages. The plaintiff filed civil writ petition and as per the decision of this court, the seniority of the plaintiff was fixed as R.W.M. w.e.f. 5.5.1993 and his seniority as A.L.M. was fixed at Sr. No. 648-A. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by learned trial court. 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration as prayed for? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, the plaintiff is also entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 5. Relief. 6. The parties led their respective evidence. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court took up issues No. 1 and 2 together and it has been held that the plaintiff is not entitled to wages before 17.5.1994, the date of the award of the Labour Court, but he is entitled to the wages for the period after the date of the said award to the date of actual regularization of his services. Learned trial court has also noticed that though, the plaintiff did not work from 5.5.1993 to 3.11.1995 as defendants did not allow him to join the duties, yet as per the orders of the Labour Court, he was to be reinstated immediately and the defendants did not do so. In these circumstances, the plaintiff is held entitled to arrears as per instructions of the Haryana Government of the year 1993 from the date of regularization w.e.f. 17.5.1994. 7. Having lost their defence before the trial court, the defendants filed an appeal which also failed before learned District Judge, Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 13.9.2012. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the services of the plaintiff were terminated w.e.f. 7.1.1984. According to him, the plaintiff approached the Labour Court which ordered his reinstatement vide award dated 17.5.1994. According to him, despite this, he did not work and as he did not work, he is not entitled to the wages. 9. Learned trial court as well as first appellate court have clearly noticed that despite there being award, ordering reinstatement of the plaintiff in service, the defendants refused to reinstate him. Thus, the plaintiff was willing to work but he was not allowed to join his duties. 10. Despite there being award of the labour court and the willingness of the plaintiff-respondent to join his duties, he was forcibly kept out of the job. Therefore, it cannot be said that he stayed away from his work willingly or deliberately. He was forced to stay away from his work. Learned first appellate court has noticed that in such circumstances, the principle of 'no work no pay' would not apply and the benefits claimed from the date of award of the Labour Court are admissible to him. In view of the above, I find no substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. Moreover, no questions of law much less substantial questions of law arise in this appeal. Consequently, the appeal has no merit and is dismissed in limine.