Ammapet Handloom Weavers' Co-Operative Production And Sales Society Ltd. v. Kadalaimuthu And Others

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 Amma-pet Handloom Weavers' Co-operative Production and Sales Society Ltd. The first respondent in writ petition No. 1978 of 1967, K.S Kadalaimuthu, was transferred from Ammapet to Erode on January 28, 1985, directing him to join at Erode on February 1, 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 March 16, 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 February 1, 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 Writ Petition No. 2510 of 1967, P.S Guruswami, was transferred from Ammapet to T. Nagar on January 28, 1965, with a direction to join on February 1, 1965. He also asked for an advance of Rs. 200 and for two weeks' leave. It was not given. On March 16, 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 January 9, 1965. He was asked to join at T. Nagar on February 5, 1365, on the expiry of his leave. On February 8, 1965, he asked for an advance of Rs. 200 and that advance was not given. He did not present himself subsequently, and on March 16, 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 January 18, 1965, directing him to join on January 28, 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 March 16, 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 January 28, 1965, with a direction to join duty at Salem on February 4, 1965. On February 9, 1965, he asked for an advance of Rs. 100 and time upto February 15, 1965. The request was refused and the first respondent applied for leave from February 15, 1965 to February 28, 1965. But the leave was not granted, and on March 16, 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 the society from March 17, 1965. The first respondent in Writ Petition No. 2512 of 1967, the said Sahadevan, did not join duty.

2. The above said employees filed an appeal under Section 41 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act against the order of the President, Ammapet Handloom Weaver's Co-operative Production and Sales Society Ltd., dated March 16, 1965. The case of the employees is that the order dated March 16, 1965, amounted to some sort of dismissal or discharge, and the order clearly indicated termination of service and settlement of accounts.

3. 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 Mar. 16. 1965, is not valid. In these writ petitions the society contends that the order dated March 16, 1965, would not amount to dispensing with the services of the employees. The facts disclosed that though the order of transfer was passed on January 28, 1965, in two cases, on January 9, 1965, in one case, on January 18, 1965, in another case, and on January 28, 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 1-112 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 March 16, 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 employees-respondents that the order dated March 16, 1965. would amount to dispensing with the services of the persons employed, under Section 41 of the Act. The order dated March 16, 1965 is therefore, perfectly valid and cannot be challenged. The order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is set aside.

4. 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.

5. The petitions are allowed. There will be no order as to costs.