BENODE BEHARY ROY Vs. GENERAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY LTD.,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff sues the defendant company for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 6,184 as being the gratuity alleged to be earned by the plaintiff as an employee of the defendant company. The defendant company resists the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the bye-laws which entitled the plaintiff at one stage of his service to claim the gratuity had been altered before the termination of the plaintiff's services. The vexed question as to how far a company by altering its bye-laws can prejudicially affect an employee's contract of service has been raised in this suit.

(2.) The facts may be stated very briefly. The plaintiff was appointed Secretary of the Company in October 1924 at a salary of Rs. 160 per month and it is the pleading of the plaintiff that such appointment was subject to and in terms of the regulations contained in the then bye-laws of the defendant company. He thereafter rose to the position of the Officiating General Manager of the Company in 1982-88. His services were terminated in December 1939 and he was admittedly paid his Provident Fund.

(3.) When he joined service of the defendant company as its secretary the bye-laws of the company at the time did not entitle him to any gratuity because his salary was below Rs. 300 per month, Gratuity at that time under the bye-laws was payable only to employees of the superior service of the company drawing, a salary of Rs. 300 per month and over (Bye law 54)' and such gratuity was payable in lieu of pension (Bye-law 94 under chap. 12 which Chapter deals with superior service only). The employees of the subordinate service of the company were given only Provident Fund for which provision was made under chap. 13 of the bye-laws. The difference between the superior service and the subordinate service will appear under bye law 54. These bye-laws were published in 1923. The plaintiff reached the grade of Rs. 300 per month on 1st January 1929. Bye-law that governed, grant of gratuity at that time is contained in Clause 94 of the bye-laws published in 1923. That bye-law is in the following terms :