JUDGMENT M.S. Menon, C.J. 1. These appeals by the Superintendent of the Manjumalai Estate belonging to the Travancore Tea Estates Company Limited relate to the transfer of an apprentice in that estate to another estate of the company and his subsequent dismissal consequent on his refusal to comply with the order of transfer. "The controversy was the subject of an industrial dispute and of the award by the Labour Court, Quilon, in Industrial Dispute No. 43 of 1958. 2. The issue referred for adjudication by the Government under S.10(1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was worded as follows: "Whether the transfer of Shri K. Vasu, apprentice of Manjumalai Tea Factory to Donami Tea Factory and the subsequent dismissal are justifiable? To what relief he is entitled if the above is : (a) justifiable and (b) not justifiable." The Labour Court upheld the right to transfer but altered the order of dismissal to one of suspension. It said : "I set aside the order of dismissal to one of suspension and reinstate Shri K. Vasu as an apprentice in the tea factory attached to the Bonami Estate on condition that he reports for duty within 15 days of the publication of the award in the Government Gazette failing which the dismissal will stand confirmed. He is not entitled to any back wages whatsoever". 3. Both the employer and the workmen of the Manjumalai Estate were dissatisfied with the award and challenged it in so far as it negatived their respective contentions by petitions to this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The petition filed by the employer was O. P. No. 108 of 1960 and the petition filed by the workmen was O. P. No. 131 of 1960. 4. The petition filed by the employer was dismissed and the petition filed by the workmen was allowed by Vaidialingam J. by a common judgment dated 13-12-1960. The learned Judge said : "O. P. No. 131 of 1960 is allowed and O. P. No. 108 of 1960 is dismissed. 4. The petition filed by the employer was dismissed and the petition filed by the workmen was allowed by Vaidialingam J. by a common judgment dated 13-12-1960. The learned Judge said : "O. P. No. 131 of 1960 is allowed and O. P. No. 108 of 1960 is dismissed. The result will bo that the petitioner in O. P. No. 131 of 1960 namely, Shri Vasu will be considered to have been in service throughout the period when he has been under orders of either dismissal or suspension." Writ Appeal No. 44 of 1961 is directed against the dismissal of O. P. No. 108 of 1960 and Writ Appeal No. 45 of 1961 is against the allowing of O. P. No. 131 of 1960. 5. It is common ground that if the employer had the right to transfer Vasu from the Manjumalai Estate to another estate of the Travancore Tea Estates Company Limited, then the order dismissing him for non compliance with the order of transfer must stand; and that if the employer had no such right, the order of dismissal cannot be sustained and these Writ Appeals by the employer should be dismissed. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in AIR 1960 S. C. 650 : "Apart from any statutory provision, the rights of an employer and an employee are governed by the terms of contracts between them or by the terms necessarily implied therefrom" The question in this case has to be resolved in the light of the agreement entered into between Vasu and the Travancore Tea Estates Company Limited on 1-10-1955. 6. Clause 1 of the agreement says : "Subject as hereinafter provided the Company shall permit the apprentice to work and the apprentice shall work as an apprentice in the Company's Manjumalai Estate (hereinafter referred to as 'the said estate') for a period of three years from the first day of October 1955." The subsequent clauses do not affect the question and it is not contended that they do. 7. We consider clause 1 of the agreement as granting Vasu the right to work in the Manjumalai Estate during the three years specified and as militating against any right of the employer to transfer him during the currency of the agreement from that estate to another. 7. We consider clause 1 of the agreement as granting Vasu the right to work in the Manjumalai Estate during the three years specified and as militating against any right of the employer to transfer him during the currency of the agreement from that estate to another. A right to transfer cannot possibly co-exist with the permission granted to work in the Manjumalai Estate-itself during that period. 8. It follows that the order of transfer was unwarranted, that the order of dismissal for non compliance with the order of transfer was wrong, and that the decision of the learned Judge has to be affirmed and these Writ Appeals dismissed. We do so. The appellant will pay the costs of the 1st respondent, Advocate's fee Rs. 200/- in both the appeals together. We feel, that in the interests of justice, we should remark in this case as well that it is open to the decree holder to approach the court which passed the decree to amend it and bring it into form and in conformity with S.52 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. We allow this appeal, but make no order as to costs.