M NANJAPPA Vs. M P MUTHUSWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is by the defendant against the decree passed by the Principal District Judge, Bangalore, in Regular Appeal No. 25 of 1966 modifying the decree passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore (Urban), in Original Suit No. 83 of 1964. The plaintiff has also preferred cross-objections.

(2.) The respondent Muthuswamy was employed by the appellant Nanjappa as a salesman under the contract Ex. D-1 dated 2nd January, 1962. The contractual period stipulated therein is five years. The salary fixed was Rs. 120 per month and Muthuswamy was entitled to annual increments at the rate of Rs. 10. The contract also provides that in the event of Muthuswamy deciding to start his own business, he is free to quit the job on the completion of three years of service. On the same day another contract came into existence between the parties under which Nanjappa agreed to pay a further sum of Rs. 80 per month if Muthuswamy secured good business from places outside the city of Bangalore. It is not disputed that no occasion arose for payment of the additional amount as ,per the contract Ex. P-3. Muthuswamy was employed as a salesman in the employer's shop situated in the city of Bangalore, which deals in silk fabrics and garments. Muthuswamy rendered service as a salesman till 17-3-1964, when his service was terminated by the employer. Muthu-swamy instituted the suit on the 18th of July, 1964 for damages for breach of the contract of service Ex. D-1 and claimed a sum of Rs. 10,540.00 as damages. This amount, according to Muthuswamy, represents the remuneration which he would have got if he had continued in service for the full period of five years stipulated in the contract of service Ex. D-1. He has claimed this amount after giving deduction to the amounts received from his employer.

(3.) Nanjappa resisted the suit on various grounds. It is his case that it is Muthuswamy that has committed the breach of the contract and abandoned the service voluntarily and therefore, he is not entitled (liable) to pay any damages. His further case is that the amount of damages claimed by Muthuswamy is excessive and unreasonable.