ALEXANDRA GREEN Vs. A. C. COWLES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUBHEDAR , A.J.C. 1. The plaintiff non-appellant was employed by the defendant applicant as a Motor Engineer on Rs. 300 a month. The contract of service was not for any fixed term and did not admittedly contain any stipulation with regard to the necessity of notice being served by either aide to terminate the service. The defendant asked the plaintiff to make over charge on 11th January 1931, but the plaintiff could not make over charge to his successor till 25th January 1931. The plaintiff was paid by the defendant his salary up to 15th January 1931 and Rs. 500 more as compensation representing one month's salary evidently because his services were terminated without notice, The suit out of which this application for revision arises was filed by the plaintiff to recover from the defendant 15 days pay for the month of January 1931 and also Rs. 300 as damages as according to him at least two month's notice to terminate his employment should have been given by the defendant. The lower Court passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 394-14-10, with proportionate costs, as it held that the plaintiff should have been given his pay from 16th to 25th January 1931 for which period he served the defendant and Rs. 300 as compensation in addition to Rs. 300 already received by the plaintiff because it held that under the circumstances two months' notice to terminate the service ought to have been given by the defendant. It is against this decree that the defendant has come up to this Court in revision.

(2.) IT is argued for the applicant that no decree should have been passed with respect to the salary of the plaintiff between 16th to 25th January 1931 be cause he did not work with the defendant. But the lower Court's finding based on proper appreciation of the evidence is very definite that the plaintiff did work for the defendant up to 25th January. On this finding the lower Court was perfectly justified in decreeing the pay for that period. The next point argued was that having regard to all the circumstances of the case it should have been held that one month's notice was sufficient and the plaintiff was not entitled to two months' notice as held by the lower Court. In Mr. G.G. Giffert v. Hinghanghat Mill Co. (1891) 4 CPLR 115 the law as to notice is correctly laid down as follows: There has not as yet been established in India any custom regulating the notice required to be given on either side of a wish to terminate the engagement between employer and employee and every case has to be decided on its own merits and the consideration of the special circumstances attending it.