SREE MINAKSHI MILLS LTD Vs. TCANANTARAMA AYYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of our brother Waller, J., decreeing the plaintiff's suit with costs. The suit is by the plaintiff for damages for wrongful dismissal by the Sri Meenakshi Mills, Limited, of Madura. The plaintiff is a Graduate in Arts and in Engineering, of the Madras University. He was employed in the Public Works Department for some time, but lost his employment on account of retrenchment in that department and, at the time the events which are the subject of this suit took place, was out of employ. In about October 1921 a limited company was formed, called the Sri Minakshi Mills Ltd., and Messrs. Theagaraja Chetti & Co. were its Managing Agents. In October 1923 Mr. Theagaraja Chetti had an interview with the plaintiff in connexion with employing him as engineer for constructing mill buildings. But at that time Mr. Theagaraja Chetti was attempting to get the services of Mr. V.T. Srinivasa Ayyangar who was still in Government service. Until that matter was settled, he was not willing to employ the plaintiff. In November 1923 the plaintiff wrote to Mr. Theagaraja Chetti requesting him to inform his final decision (Ex, l). On 8 December Mr. Chetti addressed a letter to the plaintiff informing him that Mr. Srinivasa Ayyangar was not available and that he was going to send an advertisement to the papers for an engineer under instruction of the directors (Ex. A). The advertisement in the "Hindu" is Ex. K and the plaintiff's application is Ex. B. The qualifications stated in his application, which are admitted to be correct, show that, until the contrary is proved, we must take it, that the plaintiff is a qualified engineer competent to undertake the construction of the buildings of the Sri Meenakshi Mills, Ltd.

(2.) Mr. Theagaraja Chetti himself had something to do with such matters and though he is not qualified in the sense that he did not receive education in a technical college, he is certainly competent to judge of the fitness of an engineer and we have no doubt that he thought that the plaintiff was a competent engineer. In Ex. C the plaintiff was offered Rs. 350 a month. But he replied by Ex. D that he cannot accept any salary less than Rs. 400 per mensem. He adds that he had previously agreed to accept Rs. 400 and he was willing to adhere to it. The reference is obviously to the conversation in October 1923. Ex. E is a telegram in reply to Ex. D. It runs thus: Agree 400 without quarter conveyance to act Engineer and Manager. Please join duty immediately.

(3.) Obviously the word manager in this telegram was intended to mean not the Managing Agent of the company but merely manager of the construction works of the mills, and, everybody understood it to be so. In the plaintiff's application he mentions the fact that he had at one time 500 men working directly under him and with reference to this, the word manager was apparently used. I mention this merely to show that there is no difficulty about the meaning of the term and there is no question of any variation of the offer so far as this word is concerned. The plaintiff replied, Ex, F, thus: Shall arrive Madura Friday 1 February awaiting detailed letter.