( 1. ) THREE suits out of which these three appeals arise were filed by the respondents Ramdutt Chaturvedi, Gourishankar Mathur and Gourishankar Shrivastava, respectively, in the Court of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Bhopal, for arrears of pay and for their reinstatement on posts from which they were dismissed by the appellant. The suits were dismissed by the trial Court by a common judgment. The respondents went up in appeals to the Additional District Judge, Bhopal, who allowed the appeals and decreed the claims. Against this judgment, the appellant (New Bhopal Textiles, Ltd. Bhopal) have filed three appeals, viz. , Second Appeals Nos. 518, 517 and 516, all of 1858. As these appeals arise out of the same judgment and common questions are involved, this judgment governs the disposal of all the three appeals.

( 2. ) IT is not disputed that the three respondents were in the service of the appellant drawing a salary of Rs. 100, Rs. 115 and Rs. 99-12-0 per month, respectively. They were arrested on 18 January 1950 and were detained under the Preventive Detention Act till 24 April 1950. On release, they applied to the appellant for being taken in service, but they were orally told that their services had been terminated and on 20 May 1950 a formal order terminating their services was given to them.

( 3. ) THE case of the respondents was that while under detention they had applied for leave to the appellant but did not hear anything from them. On release, they were entitled to be continued in service, as their tenure of office was permanent. The termination of their services by the appellant was wrongful and therefore they claimed arrears of pay till the date of filing the suits as also an order from the Court reinstating them in employment.

( 4. ) THE appellant as defendant pleaded that the services of the respondents were terminated on account of long absence on 1 March 1950 and a formal order was delivered to them on 20 May 1950. It was stated that the appellant had a right to terminate the services of the respondents on account of absence and could not be forced to take them back in employment. The appellant also stated that the respondents had been paid salary up to 20 May 1960 as a special case and therefore they were not entitled to any damages for breach of contract. At any rate, they pleaded that the relief of reinstatement could not be granted.

( 5. ) THE lower appellate Court found that the respondents had sent applications for leave to the appellant and the appellant was bound to grant it. Accordingly, it was held that the order terminating the services of the respondents was illegal. Further, the lower appellate Court placed the burden of proving the terms of the contract and the rules and regulations regarding service conditions on the appellant, and in the absence of proof it was held that the respondents were entitled to leave as of right. Accordingly, the appeal of each respondent was allowed and the relief, as prayed for, was granted.

( 6. ) THE learned Counsel for both the parties have admitted before me that at the material time in 1950 there was no law governing the relations of the employers and employees in industries in Bhopal. They admitted that the relationship between the parties was thus governed by the normal law applying to master and servant unmodified by any statute.

( 7. ) THE lower appellate Court also proceeded on the same assumption, but wrongly observed that an employee is entitled to leave as a matter of right and that it is for the employer to prove the terms of the contract or rules relating "to service conditions. The normal rule is that every master and employer has an undoubted right to dismiss his servants or agents at any time. There is no law which compels a master to retain in his service a person who has ceased to possess his confidence, or whose services he no longer requires. The remedy of the servant for wrongful dismissal is by an action for damages he may have sus