Court holds that holding a contract without work or income does not justify denying sick pay.

The court ruled in favor of the insured, granting the right to sick pay despite the employer holding a contract of service without actual performance. The plaintiff argued that the lack of income from the contract should preclude benefits, while the opposing party contended that the contractual relationship itself mandated denial. The court decided that merely possessing the contract without generating income fails to meet the substantive requirements for denying the statutory benefit.