The Ammapet Handloom Weavers Co-operative Production and Sales Society Ltd. and Others vs K.S. Kadalaimuthu and Others

P.S. Kailasam, J.—All these writ petitions raise the same question, and they can be dealt with together. The first respondents in the five writ

petitions are employed under the petitioner, the Ammapet Handloom Weavers'' Co-operative Production and Sales. Society Ltd. The first

respondent in W.P. No. 1978 of 1967 K. S. Kadalaimuthu was transferred from Ammapet to Erode on 28th January, 1965 directing him to join

at Erode on 1st February, 1965. The first respondent asked for an advance of Rs. 200 and ten days time to join. This was refused. The employee,

first respondent, did not turn up, and the society on 16th March, 1965 passed an order stating that the employee has not reported at the depot to

which he was transferred, though he was required to join on 1st 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. The first respondent in W.P. No. 2510 of 1967, P. S. Guruswami,. was transferred

from Ammapet to T''Nagar on 28th January, 1965 with a direction to join on 1st February, 1965. He also asked for an advance of Rs. 200 and

for two weeks'' leave. It was not given. On 16th March, 1965 the society passed an order similar to the one referred to in Writ Petition No. 1978

of 1967. The first respondent in Writ Petition No. 2511 of 1967 S. J. Abdul Razack was transferred from Salem to T''Nagar by an order on 9th

January, 1965. He was asked to join at T''Nagar on 5th February, 1965, on the expiry of his leave. On 8th February, 1965 he asked for an

advance of Rs. 200 and that advance was not given. He did not present himself subsequently, and on 16th March, 1965 the society passed an

order similar to the one referred to, in Writ Petition No. 1978 of 1967. The first respondent in Writ Petition No. 2512 of 1967, Sahadevan, was

transferred from Salem to Tirunelveli on 18th January, 1965 directing him to join on 28th January, 1965. He claimed an advance of Rs. 60 and

time. The advance and the time asked for were refused. He failed to turn up. On 16th 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 the first respondent Sadasivam was transferred from Erode to Salem on

28th January, 1965 with a direction to join duty at Salem on 4th February, 1965. On 9th February, 1965 he asked for an advance of Rs. 100 and

time upto 15th February, 1965. The request was refused and the first respondent applied for leave from 15th February, 1965 to 28th February,

1965. But the leave was not granted, and on 16th 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 17th March, 1965. The first respondent 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 16th March, 1965. The case of the employees is that the order

dated 16th 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 16th March, 1965 is not valid. In these writ petitions the society contends that the order dated 16th 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 28th January, 1965 in two

cases, on 9th January, 1965 in one case, on 18th January, 1965 in another case, and on 28th 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 11/2 months, the society presumed that the employees, the first respondents 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 16th

March, 1965 would not amount to dispensing with 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

employees-respondents that the order dated 16th March, 1965 would amount to dispensing with the services of the persons employed, u/s 41 of

the Act. The order dated 16th 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 employees-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.