BHAKTA SHIROMANI ALIAS BACHCHA Vs. SEETAL NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision from a decree of a Court of Small Causes. The plaintiff came to Court on the allegation that he was employed as a compositor in the defendant's press at a salary of Rs. 17 per month and that he was dismissed on the 20 of January, 1925, without notice. He claimed the pay for the 20 days ha served and an additional pay for 15 days as he was dismissed without previous notice. The suit was contested by the-defendant and all liability was denied. The learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes has granted the plaintiff a decree for his pay for twenty days and dismissed the rest of the claim.

(2.) The findings which I must accept are as follows : The plaintiff worked in the defendant's press up to the 20 of January, on which date at about 12 o clock, ho, having got fever, disappeared from the press without applying for leave. He did not turn up for 5 or 6 days, and as he had disappeared without leave or sanction, and had left the work, the defendant was much irritated and dismissed him. The Court below finds that the plaintiff committed default and the defendant was justified in dismissing him. In spite of this finding it has granted the plaintiff a decree for his wages for 20 days.

(3.) As I have said, it was admitted by the plaintiff in the plaint that he was engaged on a monthly salary of Rs. 17. On the findings ho left the work without leave and without sanction of the defendant and did not turn up for 5 or 6 days. The defendant was justified in dismissing him If the conduct of the plaintiff was such that it justified the defendant in dismissing him before the expiry of the month the plaintiff, in my opinion, was not entitled to his salary for even the broken period for which he had served.