The Management Of Nagammal Mills Ltd. ... vs Kumari Mavatta Noorppalai Thozilalar ... on 10 December, 1998
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has rightly submitted that when the employees are able to attend the work, and also in view of the fact that the management did not declare that day as holiday, it is the duty of the employees to attend the work, or they have to lose their salary. Since the employees had not attended the work, as rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner-management sustained loss of production, and, at the same time, the employees cannot insist for salary. He has also submitted, according to me which is sustainable, that if the employees want to participate in the bandh, they must be ready to lose their benefit also. They cannot participate in the bandh at the costs of the employer. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents have submitted, relying on the decision in Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd. v. Principal District Judge (1996)2 L.L.J. 205, that absence from work is not wilful, but due to the bandh. In the absence of any pleading to the effect that beyond their control, the employees could not attend the work, the absence should be construed only as wilful. So, the said decision cannot be relied on to the facts of the present case. It is also not the case of the respondents that the management had declared holiday on that date.