Arifin Zakaria JCA:

The Background Facts

[1] The facts in this case are not in dispute. They are briefly as follows. Except for the 1st respondent all the respondents in this case were in the employment of the appellant as rubber tappers. The 1st respondent was a mandore (tapping) also in the employment of the appellant. Ladang Holyrood, the appellant herein, comprised of two divisions namely, the Main Division Estate and the Bukit Rhona Division Estate. The respondents were attached to the Bukit Rhona Division Estate. By a letter dated 18 June 1994 the respondents were told by the appellant that the rubber trees in the said division will be felled for replanting purposes. As a consequent the respondents would be transferred to the Main Division with effect from 1 July 1994. The respondents did not agree to the proposed transfer. Instead they asked the appellant to pay them termination and lay off benefits pursuant to The Employment (Termination and Lay Off Benefits) Regulations 1980.

[2] By letter dated 30 June 1994 the appellant told the respondents to comply with the transfer order failing which the appellant would resort to the various options open to the appellant. This was followed by the letter of 6 July 1994 wherein the respondents were directed to report for work at the Main Division on or before 20 July 1994 failing which they will be deemed to have abandoned their employment. The respondents did not comply with the said order, but instead they brought a claim under s.70 of the Employment Act 1955 ("the Act") claiming the following reliefs, namely, the annual leave pay, indemnity in lieu of notice and the termination benefits. The claim went before the Assistant Director of Labour ("Assistant Director"). He allowed their claim for annual leave pay but dismissed all other claims.

[3] The respondents then appealed to the High Court which allowed the appeal and ordered that the respondents be paid the indemnity in lieu of notice and the termination benefit in addition to the annual leave pay. The appellant now appeals to this Court against the decision of the learned judge. After having heard arguments of the parties we adjourned the matter for our consideration and decision. We now give our decision.

The Contentions Of The Parties

[4] We were told that the issue in this case is of considerable importance to the plantation industry as this concerns the 'relocation of workers', which the learned counsel for the appellant contended, is a normal practice in the industry. He emphasised that such a practice is a normal occurrence in the industry arising from the need to have the old rubber trees replanted with new ones in order to increase the yield. He said the practice has been, to relocate workers to the new area while the old trees are being felled. This he said is precisely what happened in the present case. In the alternative he argued even if the Court holds that the relocation is in fact tantamount to a transfer as alleged by the respondents the learned trial judge had erred in law in holding that the appellant has no right to transfer the respondents in the present case. He contended that it is within the prerogative of the appellant, as the employer, to transfer the respondents any where within the same organization for as long as the transfer is reasonable and not tainted by any ulterior motive.

[5] He said, in this case it is not disputed that the two divisions form part of the same estate with a common management. It is being run by a single manager and assisted by two assistant managers. For all intent and purposes it is a single entity. The respondents were paid by the appellant and would continue to be paid by the appellant even after the transfer to the Main Division. That is to say the respondents would continue to be in the same employment even after the said transfer. In the circumstances, he submitted there is no cause for complaint.

[6] The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the learned