JUDGMENT : In this intra court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 the appellant has assailed the validity of the order dated 11.06.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition preferred by the petitioner in which challenge was made to the order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal dated 17.10.2005 has been negatived and the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed. In order to appreciate the appellant's challenge to the impugned order, few facts need mention, which are stated hereinafter. 2. The respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman' for short) was appointed on 16.09.1969 to discharge the technical duties in the Bank on a temporary basis. The contract of employment was extended from time to time and by an order dated 20.02.1970, the workman was continued in employment on contractual basis as work supervisor. On 22.02.1972 the contractual appointment of workman expired. Thereafter, on 14.05.2973, the workman was appointed as clerk. The workman was not found entitled for promotion to the officer cadre in the year 1982. Thereafter, in 1985, the Regional Recruitment Board of the appellant rejected the application of the workman for the recruitment to the post of Civil Engineer on the ground that he is over aged. 3. The workman thereafter filed a petition before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal claiming promotion to appropriate middle Management Group Scale (MMGS) -III -Equivalent scale with retrospective service benefit. The workman during the course of proceedings before the Tribunal attained the age of superannuation on 31.08.2001. The tribunal passed an award dated 17.10.2005 and directed the appellant herein to accord the workman the MMGS-III-Equivalent scale and to treat him as promoted in the said scale with effect from 01.01.1986 and to extend the benefit of arrears of salary with all consequential benefits. The aforesaid award passed by the tribunal was subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 11.06.2013, has partly allowed the writ petition preferred by the appellant and has directed the appellant to treat the workman in MMGS-III-Equivalent scale with effect from 01.07.1991 and to pay him arrears of salary based on notional promotion along with consequential benefits till he attains the age of superannuation. In the aforesaid factual background, the appellant has filed this appeal. 4. In the aforesaid factual background, the appellant has filed this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the workman is not entitled to the benefit of arrears of salary as he has not worked in MMGS-III-Equivalent post. Therefore, the tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge grossly erred in granting consequential benefits to the workman. In support of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in PUNJAB LAND DEVELOPMENT AND RECLAMATION CORPORATION LTD. CHANDIGARH VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, CHANIDGARH AND OTHERS, (1990) 3 SCC 682 , HARJINDER SINGH VS. PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, AIR (SC) 2010-0-6111, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA, AD (DEL)-2007-5-54 AND U.P.STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. POORAN CHANDRA PANDEY and OTHERS, (2007) 11 SCC 92 . 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the workman has read the order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal and has submitted that the tribunal on the basis of meticulous appreciation of evidence on record has granted the relief to the workman which has been suitably modified by the learned Single Judge. It is further submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is based on meticulous appreciation of material available on record and does not call for any interference by this court in exercise of powers under Section 4 of the Act. 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. From the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, it is evident that the appellant is not aggrieved by grant of promotion to the workman on MMGS-III-Equivalent post with effect from 01.07.1991. However, the appellant is only aggrieved by the direction given by the learned Single Judge with regard to grant of arrears and consequential benefits. From the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, it is evident that the appellant is not aggrieved by grant of promotion to the workman on MMGS-III-Equivalent post with effect from 01.07.1991. However, the appellant is only aggrieved by the direction given by the learned Single Judge with regard to grant of arrears and consequential benefits. The principle of 'no work, no pay' does not apply to the fact situation of the case as learned Single Judge has recorded a finding in para 9 of its order that admittedly, the workman was performing the duties such as supervision of construction of buildings, preparation of plans, estimates and bills and certifying the bills of several lakhs for payments, inspection of strong rooms, issuing fitness certificate, suggesting improvements, addition and alteration of the building, valuation of the properties and all other technical /supervisory works relating to civil sanitary, water supply, electrical installation and erection etc. It is also not in dispute that the workman was granted special allowance for performing the duties. The learned Single Judge has referred to the documents relied by the labour court viz., Ex.WW18, 19(1) to (3), 20, 21 & 22(a) to (f), 23(a) to (h), 24 (a) to (j), 25(a) to (g) and WW26. Exs. WW33(a) to (g), 37(a) to (e), 38(a) to (d), 41 (a) to (g), 42(a) to (e), 43(a) to (c), 44(a) & (b), 45, 46, 47, 48, 49(a) to (c) & WW 50 (a) to (p), which have not been disputed by the management. The learned Single Judge therefore, has affirmed the findings of the industrial tribunal that the workman was discharging duties of post of civil engineer -MMGS-III-cadre until two engineers were appointed in 1985 and even thereafter, when they were promoted to the post of SNSG Scale -IV in the middle of 1991. Thus, in the instant case, the workman has performed the duties of post of civil engineer and therefore, he has rightly been held entitled to all the consequential benefits for the period for which he has worked as civil engineer in MMGS-III. For the aforementioned reasons, principle of 'no work, no pay' would not apply to the fact situation of this case as the appellant has admittedly performed the duties of the post of civil engineer in MMGS-III cadre. We do not find any ground to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. For the aforementioned reasons, principle of 'no work, no pay' would not apply to the fact situation of this case as the appellant has admittedly performed the duties of the post of civil engineer in MMGS-III cadre. We do not find any ground to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.