Kamini Kumar Chanda v. Rebati Raman Das

Mookerjee, A.C.J:— This is as appeal by the Chairman of the Silchar Municipality in a suit institnted against the Municipality by the plaintiff for recovery of wages. The plaintiff accepted an appointment under the commissioners on the 25th July, 1895, and held various offices from time to time till ultimately he was appointed to be the Head Clerk and Accountant on a salary of Rs. 50 a month. While he held such appointment, he was suspended on the 25th November 1915 under orders the Vice-Chairman. He remained under suspension till the 27th April, 1917, i.e, for a period of one year five months and two days, when he was removed permanently from his post. No reasons were assigned for his suspension or removal in the present suit, he sues to recover his wages from the 26th November, 1915 till the 27th April, 1917, less the amounts which were paid to him by way of compassionate allowance for five months and five days during the period of suspension. In our opinion, there is no answer to the claim.

2. It is not necessary for us to investigate the powers of the Municipality to dismiss servants, because the plaintiff does not seek to recover damages of wrongful dismissal.

3. It is perfectly plain that as the plaintiff was not dismissed bill the 27th April, 1917, and as no reasons were assigned for that removal from his office, be is entitled to his wages during the whole of the period for which he was under suspension.

4. It was contended for the appellant that the Municipality was entitled to remove the plaintiff without notice and without assignment of reason. We are unable to uphold this contention as well founded on reason and principle. It has been held in England that if no custom or stipulation as to notice exists, and if the contract of service is not one which can be regarded as a yearly hiring, the service is terminable by reasonable notloa. In support of this proposition, reference may be made to the case of Fairman v. Oakford (1), where Pollock, C.B pointed out that in the case of clerks in superior positions three months is regarded as the period of reasonable notice. [See also the observation of Abbott, C.J in Huttmann v. Boulnois (2).] The same view has been taken in the cases of Foxall v. International Land Credit Co. (3); Gandell v. Pontegny (4); Mac Dowall's case (5). It is further stated in the Judgment of the Court of first Instancs, and that finding has not been disturbed by the Subordinate Judge, that no reasons were assigned for the removal of the plaintiff; it has not been found that he was removed for misconduct alleged and proved.

5. In these circumstances, the suit has been rightly decreed, and this appeal be dismissed with costs.

Fletcher, J.:— I agree.

6. Appeal dismissed.