AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.S. Kailasam, J.—All these writ petitions raise the same question, and they can be dealt with together. Respondents 1 in the five writ
petitions are employed under the petitioner, the Ammapet Handloom Weavers'' Co-operative Production and Sales Society, Ltd. Respondent 1 in
Writ Petition No. 1978 of 1967, K.S. Kadalaimuthu, was transferred from Ammapet to Erode on 28 January 1965, directing: him to join at Erode
on 1 February 1965. Respondent 1 asked for an advance of Rs. 200 and ten days'' time to join. This was refused. The employee, respondent 1,
did not turn up, and the society on 16 March 1965, passed an order stating that the employee had not reported at the depot to which he was
transferred, though he was required to join on 1 February 1965 and that he had not made any application for leave for not joining duty and hence
he was removed from the list of employees. Respondent 1 in Writ Petition No. 2510 of 1967, P.S. Guruswami, was transferred from Ammapet to
T. Nagar on 28 January 1965, with a direction to join on 1 February 1965. He also asked for an advance of Rs. 200 and for two weeks'' leave. It
was not given. On 16 March 1965, the society passed an order similar to the one referred to in Writ Petition No. 1978 of 1967. Respondent 1 in
Writ Petition No. 2511 of 1967, S.J. Abdul Razack, was transferred from Salem to T. Nagar by an order on 9 January 1965. He was asked to
join at T. Nagar on 5 February 1965, on the expiry of his leave. On 8 February 1965, he asked for an advance of Rs. 200 and that advance was
not given. He did not present himself subsequently, and on 16 March 1965, the society passed an order similar to the one referred to in Writ
Petition No. 1978 of 1967. Respondent 1 in Writ Petition No. 2512 of 1967, Sahadevan, was transferred from Salem to Tirunelveli on 18
January 1965, directing him to Join on 28 January 1965. He claimed for an advance of Rs. 60 and time. The advance and the time asked for were
refused. He failed to turn up. On 16 March 1965, the society passed an order similar to the one in Writ Petition No. 1978 of 1967. In Writ
Petition No. 2679 of 1967 respondent 1 Sadasivam was transferred from Erode to Salem on 28 January 1965, with a direction to join duty at
Salem on 4 February 1965. On 9 February 1965, he asked for an advance of Rs. 100 and time up to 15 February 1965. The request was refused
and respondent 1 applied for leave from 15 to 28 February 1965. But the leave was not granted, and on 16 March 1965, the society passed an
order similar to one in Writ Petition No. 1978 of 1967. It may be mentioned that all the employees, except Sahadevan, were entertained by the
society from 17 March 1965. Respondent 1 in Writ Petition No. 2512 of 1967, the said Sahadevan, did not Join duty.
The abovesaid employees filed an appeal u/s 41 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act against the order of the President, Ammapet
Handloom Weavers'' Co-operative Production and Sales Society, Ltd., dated 16 March 1965. The case of the employees is that the order dated
16 March 1965, amounted to some sort of dismissal or discharge, and the order clearly indicated termination of service and settlement of
accounts. The Additional Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation found that there was termination of service, that Section 41 of the Madras
Shops and Establishments Act was applicable and that as the procedure envisaged in the section was not followed, the order of the management
dated 16 March 1965, is not valid. In these writ petitions the society contends that the order dated 16 March 1965, would not amount to
dispensing with the services of the employees. The facts disclosed that though the order of transfer was passed on 28 January 1965, in two cases,
on 9 January 1965, in one case, on 18 January 1965, in another case, and on 28 January 1965, in another case directing the employees to join
duty on different dates, none of the employees presented themselves before the society either at the office they were serving or at the office to
which they were transferred. It is not incumbent on the employer to wait indefinitely for the employee to turn up. After waiting for nearly one and a
half months, the society presumed that the employees, respondents 1 in these writ petitions, stopped away from the service. The order, after stating
the facts, intimated that the names of the employees were being removed from the list of employees. The order dated 16 March 1965, would not
amount to dispensing with the services, but only making a record of the fact that the employees had failed to turn up and that they were no more in
the employment. The society is under no obligation to wait indefinitely and were acting within their rights in removing the employees'' names from
the list of employees. On the facts of the case, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the employee-respondents that the
order dated 16 March 1965, would amount to dispensing with the services of the persons employed, u/s 41 of the Act. The order dated 16 March
1965, is, therefore, perfectly valid and cannot be challenged. The order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation is set
aside.
It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the employee-respondents were taken back into service as fresh entrants. But the
learned Counsel for the employees submitted that this was not the stand of the society in their counter-affidavit. It is unnecessary to go into that
question as it is not relevant for the purpose of decision in these writ petitions.
The petitions are allowed. There will be no order as to costs.