ROSSARIO Vs. NARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants are the appellants. The plaintiff- 1st respondent filed a suit for recovery of arrears of salary due from the defendants. The first appellant is a registered partnership firm and the 2nd appellant is the Managing Partner of the firm and the appellants 3 to 5 are the partners of the firm.

(2.) Appellants 1 and 2 filed separate written statements. They contended that the plaintiff was appointed only on 23.1.1973 and he continued in service, for a short period. The appellants also denied the genuineness of two letters produced by the plaintiff. The 2nd appellant contended that when the service of the plaintiff was terminated by the appellants, the husband of the 2nd appellant one K. R. Sankar engaged the plaintiff to do some personal work and he had been rendering some service to this Sankar and for which the plaintiff was duly paid. The appellants also contended that the Government subsequently prohibited the cutting of trees and the appellants had completely given up the cutting of trees. Therefore, the service of the plaintiff was not required after March, 1974. The 4th appellant also filed separate written statement raising similar contentions.

(3.) After the filing of the appeal plaintiff died and legal representatives have been impleaded as additional respondents. The main contention urged by the appellant is that the court below went wrong in deciding the question as to whether the respondent had been working as a coupe agent from 1-1-1973 to 21-9-1976. There is some" dispute regarding the quantum of monthly salary payable to the respondent. According to the appellants the plaintiff was entitled to get monthly salary only at the rate of Rs.300/- and the claim of bonus is denied. The fact that the salary inclusive of bonus was Rs.350/-per mensem is evident from the letters produced by the plaintiff- respondent. Many of the contentions raised by the appellants are proved to be false in view of the two letters marked as Ext. A2 and A7. In Ext. A2 letter dated 7-4-1974 it has been stated that Rs. 5250/- is due to the plaintiff towards salary for the period from 1-1-1973 to 31-3-1974. From Ext. A7 letter also it is evident that the 2nd appellant was having correspondence with the plaintiff. The genuineness of these two letters has been challenged by the 2nd appellant However, she had admitted that it was her signature that was found in these two letters, and it has been contended that these letters were concocted in the blank signed papers which were originally available with the plaintiff. This contention does not in any way inspire confidence The learned counsel for the appellants also painted out that 2nd appellant was generally in the habit of writing letters of this sort only in her letter pad and the name written on the top of the letter is misspelt. According to the 2nd appellant, she usually uses letter 'S' as the third letter in her name,