NARAYANA B Vs. B DAMODARA PRABHU AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the plaintiff who worked as a clerk under the defendant who is a distributor of petrol in Mangalore. On 16 July, 1958, the defendant terminated the plaintiff's service, and the plaintiff appealed to the appellate authority under S. 41(2) of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act (Madras Act 36 of 1947). On 29 November, 1961, the appellate authority declared the order of termination to be illegal and the sequel to that decision was the suit out of which this appeal arises brought by the plaintiff for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,330 from the defendant. Out of this sum of money, a sum of Rs. 2,325 was claimed by the plaintiff as salary which he would have drawn has not his services been illegally terminated. This sum of money was also claimed in the alternative as damages, and to this sum of money a sum of Rs. 5 was added as expenses of notice.

(2.) The Munsif gave the plaintiff the decree which he wanted. But the District Judge in the appeal preferred by the defendant made a decree for a small sum of Rs. 680 as damages. This sum of money included a small sum of Rs. 5 which was claimed as expenses of notice. Both sides are dissatisfied with this decree made by the District Judge. The plaintiff contends that a decree should have been made in his favour for the entire sum of Rs. 2,330 out of which a sum of Rs. 2,325 was the amount which the plaintiff would have drawn as his salary; and quite unnecessarily he has paid court-fee even on the sum of Rs. 680 for which the District Judge gave him a decree. The defendant, who is dissatisfied with the decree made in favour of the plaintiff, has taken across-objection to that part of the decree.

(3.) Much of the argument in this appeal surrounded the question whether in consequence of the order of the appellate authority under S. 41(2) of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act the plaintiff stood reinstated in the post which he occupied before he was removed from it.