B ROSHAN LAL GOSWALA Vs. DISTRICT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The plaintiff was employed as secretary of the defendant District Board, and he claims for a declaration that the resolution of 16 October 1932 is void and that he has been wrongfully dismissed and that he is entitled to damages for wrongful dismissal, and he claims a large sum as damages made up of salary and leave allowances, etc. which, he would have received. The lower Court finds that after his services were terminated by a resolution of the board abolishing the post of secretary and the post of engineer and creating a combined post of secretary-engineer he received four months pay. The first question which arises is whether the appellant has any right of suit. As an abstract proposition of law such a right might arise in one of two ways; either by contract between the parties fixing the term's of service of the plaintiff or by statute fixing the terms of service of the plaintiff and giving the plaintiff a right to sue. The relief of damages claimed appears to be a claim under Section 73, Contract Act, compensation for loss or damage caused by a breach of contract. The relations between the parties are those arising from the contract to serve the District, Board for the payment of a monthly salary. Now in the different Acts in India for local bodies there are provisions for the manner in which contracts must be made. For District Boards in the United Provinces it is provided in the U.P. District Boards Act, Act 10 of 1922, Section 65: (1) Every contract made by or on behalf of a Board whereof the value or the amount exceeds Rs. 100 shall be in writing. (2) Every such contract shall be signed; (a) by the chairman or a vice-chairman and by the secretary, or (b) by any person or persons empowered under Sub- section (2) or (3) of the previous section to sanotion the contract if further and in like manner empowered in this behalf by the Board. (3) If a contract to which the foregoing provisions of this section apply is executed otherwise than in conformity therewith, it shall not be binding on the Board.

(2.) The plaintiff has not based his suit on any such contract nor has he produced any such contract in Court. Section 91 Evidence Act, provides that: in all cafes in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof...of such matter, except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible. (It is true that Exception I makes provision for a public officer required by law to be appointed in writing, but that is clearly for the purpose of proving merely that he was such public officer and not for proving the terms of his contract of employment).

(3.) The relations between the parties being those of contract and the value or amount exceeding Rs. 100, the contract is one to which Section 65, District Boards Act, would apply. To succeed in the present suit the plaintiff would have to produce a contract in writing signed in the manner prescribed, and containing the terms in regard to salary, leave allowances period of service, termination of service, on which his claim is based. In particular his counsel argues that the board has no right to terminate his service by mere notice without assigning cause. That is a general right existing in a master under the law of master and servant, and in a case based on contract the plaintiff would have to show that the contract contained a term by which the master gave up such a right. Learned Counsel relied on Section 70 which provides: (1) Every Board shall, by special resolution, appoint a secretary who shall be a whole time salaried officer. (2) The appointment of the secretary and the conditions of his service shall be made in conformity with the rules framed by the local Government.