ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 30.06.2006 passed by the 1 st respondent in S&E Appeal No.2 of 2004, wherein the 1 st respondent confirmed the order dated 26.05.2004 passed by the 2 nd respondent in S & E Case No.1 of2002. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: (a) The petitioner’s company is registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and it is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of the consumable goods with the Brand name "UJALA". Respondent No.3 was deployed by the petitioner’s Company as Marketing Intelligence Assistant to canvass the sales of the products of the petitioner’s Company, as per the Tour programme prepared by him one month in advance duly submitted to his superiors. The 3 rd respondent has to specifically look after Khammam District in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Later, respondent No.3 was not authorized and was away from the area of operation viz., Khammam District. His area of operation did not extend anywhere except Khammam District. He unilaterally ceased to work from 04.11.2001 onwards. Thereafter, he has chosen to discontinue from the services of the Petitioner’s Company. (b) While so, the petitioner’s Company received a Notice, dated 16.07.2002 from respondent No.2, wherein it is stated that the respondent No.3 filed a petition under Section 50 of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, vide S.E. Case No.1 of 2002, calling upon the petitioners to appear on 31.07.2002 at 3.00 p.m. The petitioners entered appearance and filed their counter statement. After hearing both the parties, respondent No.2 passed order, dated 26.05.2004 directing the petitioners to pay an amount of Rs.80,850/- to respondent No.3 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the said order. (c) Aggrieved by the order, dated 26.05.2004, the petitioners filed S & E Appeal No.2 of 2004 before respondent No.1, and the same was dismissed by order dated 30.06.2006 confirming the order dated 26.05.2004 passed by the 2 nd respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. 3. Respondent No.3 filed counter affidavit stating as follows :- (a) Respondent No.3 was appointed by the petitioner’s Company as Marketing Intelligence Assistant on 09.09.1996, and he used to take the material viz. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. 3. Respondent No.3 filed counter affidavit stating as follows :- (a) Respondent No.3 was appointed by the petitioner’s Company as Marketing Intelligence Assistant on 09.09.1996, and he used to take the material viz. UJALA Blue Liquid and Maxo Cyclothrin Mosquito Coils cartoons through the authorized stockist M/s.Sri Laxmi Srinivasa Enterprises, Kothagudem, and rendered services for the growth and prosperity of the Company. Having been satisfied with his services, his services were confirmed w.e.f. 01.04.1997 by the 1 st petitioner Company and on confirmation of his services, he was paid Rs.2,000/- per month towards wages and by June 2001, he was paid @Rs.5,250/-. (b) While respondent No.3 had been rendering his services as Marketing Intelligence Assistant, the petitioner- Company stopped payment of wages from November, 2001 onwards without any reason. Having waited for a considerable time, the 3 rd respondent made repeated requests through letters dated 07.01.2002 and 30.01.2002 respectively, but there was no response from the petitioner’s Company. As such, the 3 rd respondent approached respondent No.2 by filing a claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.43,925/- (Wages of Rs.41,925/- + expenditure of Rs.1402/-), for the claim period from 04.11.2001 to 20.06.2002, and the same was allowed on 26.05.2004. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners’ Company filed an appeal before respondent No.1 and the same was dismissed on 30.06.2006 confirming the order passed by respondent No.2. Challenging the order dated 30.06.2006, the petitioners’ Company filed the present writ petition. 4. On 08.12.2006, this Court while admitting the writ petition granted interim stay of the operation of the order dated 30.06.2006 passed by the Appellate Authority. Thereafter, the 3 rd respondent filed W.V.M.P.No.1186 of 2007 and this Court vide order dated 21.06.2007 disposed of W.V.M.P.No.1186 of2007 and W.P.M.P.No.33058 of 2006 by observing as follows :- “…I deem it appropriate to make the interim stay absolute on condition of the petitioner-management depositing Rs.40,425/- within a period of six weeks from today. On such deposit, the respondent-employee is permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. In default, the stay granted shall stand vacated automatically without further reference to the Court.” 5. Heard Sri C.R. Sridharan, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri G.V.S.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Labour appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri Mohammed Yousufuddin, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. In default, the stay granted shall stand vacated automatically without further reference to the Court.” 5. Heard Sri C.R. Sridharan, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri G.V.S.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Labour appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri Mohammed Yousufuddin, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. Perused the record. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the 3 rd respondent did not perform his work during the period in question and that he has not even averred or proved that he performed any work during the period in question. The 3 rd respondent had unilaterally ceased to work, for which the petitioners’ Company could not be blamed. As per the policy of the petitioner’s Company, every field staff/Marking Intelligence Assistant shall submit his daily sales report to its area Manager and the same would be cross checked with the monthly expense sheet. The daily sales report is the proof of work done by the Field Staff/Marketing Intelligence Assistant/Marketing Intelligence Assistant. Had the 3 rd respondent worked during the period in question, he ought to have produced the documents for the work done by him during the period in question, but the 3rd respondent had not produced any documents with regard to proof of his working for the period in question. Therefore, the principle of ‘no work – no pay’ would apply to the case of the 3 rd respondent. The petitioner’s Company had paid the salary to the 3 rd respondent for the days he had worked without any deduction. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that the findings recorded in the impugned order of the 1 st respondent as well as in the original order of the 2 nd respondent are totally perverse and baseless. The appellate authority erred in coming on a conclusion that the petitioner’s Company had admitted that the 3 rd respondent had worked from 01.04.1997 to 20.11.2001. The 3 rd respondent has not worked for the period in question and therefore, he is not entitled to claim any amount. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that the petitioner Company had never terminated nor had taken any disciplinary action against the 3rd respondent since the 3 rd respondent had unilaterally stopped working in the petitioner’s company. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that the petitioner Company had never terminated nor had taken any disciplinary action against the 3rd respondent since the 3 rd respondent had unilaterally stopped working in the petitioner’s company. The 2nd respondent, without considering the contentions advanced by the petitioner’s company, passed the order dated 26.05.2004 and the same was erroneously confirmed by the 1 st respondent vide order dated 30.06.2006. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the order dated 30.06.2006 and allow the writ petition. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 3 rd respondent submits that the petitioners’ Company miserably failed to establish that the 3 rd respondent did not work for the period from 04.11.2001 to 20.06.2002. The petitioners’ Company has not initiated disciplinary action against the 3 rd respondent under Rule 20 for the alleged misconduct, as the 3 rd respondent worked during the relevant period. The petitioner’s company cannot stop payment for eight months. The 2 nd respondent authority allowed the claim petition vide order dated 26.05.2004 by following the provisions envisaged under Section 2 (23) of the Act. Further, the 1st respondent rightly upheld the order passed by the 2 nd respondent. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the 3 rd respondent further submits that the contention of the petitioner’s Company that the 3 rd respondent unilaterally ceased to work from 04.11.2001 onwards is false and baseless. If the 3rd respondent had not fulfilled the terms and conditions of his employment during the claim period, the petitioner’s Company ought to have initiated disciplinary action against the 3 rd respondent under Rules 19 and 20 of the A.P.Shops and Establishments Rules, 1990. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent further submits that the 3 rd respondent could not send his daily reports as he had no money. The contention of the petitioner’s company that the 3 rd respondent did not perform his duties is far from truth and the same is liable to be rejected, as such, the principle of ‘no work- no pay’ would not apply in the present case. The petitioner’s company intentionally did not respond to the letters of the 3 rd respondent dated 07.01.2002 and 30.01.2002, wherein the 3 rd respondent requested the petitioner to pay his due amount towards expenses along with salary. 12. The petitioner’s company intentionally did not respond to the letters of the 3 rd respondent dated 07.01.2002 and 30.01.2002, wherein the 3 rd respondent requested the petitioner to pay his due amount towards expenses along with salary. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the 3 rd respondent further submits that the 3rd respondent has been performing his duties for the growth of the organization of the petitioners’ Company right from his appointment on 09.09.1996. Since the 3rd respondent’s performance crossed the target of 5000 points, he was awarded a cash reward of Rs.5,000/- in appreciation of excellent service rendered by him for the month of January, 1999 vide Letter of the petitioners’ Company, dated 07.02.1999.The 3 rd respondent has discharged his duties to the satisfaction of the petitioners’ Company, as such, stoppage of his salary for eight months is without any valid reason. The 3 rd respondent worked for the alleged period and there was no breach of contract of employment with the petitioners’ Company. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the 3 rd respondent further submits that the 2 nd respondent, after hearing both sides, rightly passed the order dated 26.05.2004 and the same was also confirmed by the 1 st respondent under the impugned order. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 14. This Court, upon considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties, is of the considered view that, in the instant case, on 08.12.2006, this Court, while admitting the writ petition, granted an interim stay of the operation of the order dated 30.06.2006 passed by the Appellate Authority. Subsequently, the 3 rd respondent filed W.V.M.P.No.1186 of 2007 seeking to vacate the said interim order. This Court vide order dated 21.06.2007, disposed of W.V.M.P.No.1186 of 2007 and W.P.M.P.No.33058 of 2006 making the interim stay absolute on condition of the petitioner-management depositing Rs.40,425/- within a period of six weeks from today. On such deposit, the respondent-employee is permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. 15. From the aforesaid interim order, it is evident that the petitioner-Management was directed to deposit half of the salary, and the respondent-employee was permitted to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. Furthermore, the petitioner- management failed to establish that the respondent- employee did not work for the period from 04.11.2001 to 20.06.2002. 16. 15. From the aforesaid interim order, it is evident that the petitioner-Management was directed to deposit half of the salary, and the respondent-employee was permitted to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. Furthermore, the petitioner- management failed to establish that the respondent- employee did not work for the period from 04.11.2001 to 20.06.2002. 16. The 2 nd respondent, upon considering the material available on record while passing the order in favour of the 3 rd respondent, observed that through Ex.A-15 the 3 rd respondent requested the petitioner to pay his salary and that RW.1 in his cross-examination admitted that he sent that letter to the Regional Manager and admitted that no action was taken on it. From the above, the intention of the 3 rd respondent is clear that though he worked for the period from 04.11.2001 to 20.11.2001, his subsequent request for payment through Ex.A-15 dated 07.01.2002 was denied by the management. This unequivocally establishes that the 3 rd respondent was willing to work, but the management failed to act upon his request. Accordingly, the 2 nd respondent passed an order dated 26.05.2004 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.80,850/- to the 3 rd respondent within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the said order. The appellate authority, upon re-appreciation of the evidence, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 30.06.2006, thereby confirming the order passed by the 2 nd respondent. 17. In the aforesaid circumstances, the contention raised by the petitioner–Management that, in the absence of any work performed by an employee, the doctrine of ‘no work, no pay’ should apply, cannot be accepted in the present case. This doctrine is attracted only when an employee is out of service for a certain period and claims wages for such period. In the instant case, the petitioner was not out of employment and was in fact attending duty between 04.11.2001 and 20.06.2002, however, the petitioner–Management failed to utilize the services of the third respondent. 18. In view of the above findings and the observations made by respondent Nos.1 and 2 while accepting the contention of the 3rd respondent, as well as the order passed in the vacate-stay petition filed by the 3 rd respondent, considerable strength is found in the contention of the 3 rd respondent. 19. 18. In view of the above findings and the observations made by respondent Nos.1 and 2 while accepting the contention of the 3rd respondent, as well as the order passed in the vacate-stay petition filed by the 3 rd respondent, considerable strength is found in the contention of the 3 rd respondent. 19. In the aforesaid circumstances, the averments made by the petitioner in the present writ petition cannot be accepted, as there is a concurrent finding recorded by respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is further noted that half of the amount has already been deposited by the petitioner and withdrawn by the 3rd respondent. Therefore, this Court finds no justification to interfere with the order dated 30.06.2006 passed by the 1 st respondent. Consequently, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 20. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.