Skip to content


Ralli Brothers Vs. Amluka Prasad - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in18Ind.Cas.699
AppellantRalli Brothers
RespondentAmluka Prasad
Excerpt:
master and servant - contract--office clerk--notice before resignation. - .....of his intention to resign. the lower court has held that as he is an office clerk and not a menial servant, the rule as to notice does not apply, and, therefore, he is entitled to recover the salary claimed. the question is one between master and servant. the plaintiff was engaged on a monthly salary and he would, therefore, have been, in the absence of contract to the contrary, entitled to one month's notice before his dismissal. equally his master was entitled to one month's notice before he left service. the lower court is of opinion that this rule applies only to menial servants. this opinion is by no means correct and has probably arisen because cases of this description usually arise in regard to menial servants. the english cases on the subject are to be found in smith's.....
Judgment:

Tudball, J.

1. The opposite party to this application was a clerk in the employment of Ralli Brothers on a monthly salary of Rs. 50 per month. He left his service in the middle of the month without the consent of his employers and he then brought the suit out of which this application has arisen to recover the salary for the broken portion of the month. He gave no previous notice of his intention to resign. The lower Court has held that as he is an office clerk and not a menial servant, the rule as to notice does not apply, and, therefore, he is entitled to recover the salary claimed. The question is one between master and servant. The plaintiff was engaged on a monthly salary and he would, therefore, have been, in the absence of contract to the contrary, entitled to one month's notice before his dismissal. Equally his master was entitled to one month's notice before he left service. The lower Court is of opinion that this rule applies only to menial servants. This opinion is by no means correct and has probably arisen because cases of this description usually arise in regard to menial servants. The English cases on the subject are to be found in Smith's Law of Master and Servant, 5th edition, beginning at page 182. The case of Ridgway v. Hungerford Market Company 4 N. & M. 797; 3 Adal. & Ellis. 171; 1 H. & W. 244; 4 L.J.K.B. 157; 42 R.R. 352 is the case of a clerk of a public company whose salary was paid quarterly and who was discharged for improper conduct. The judgment in that case runs as follows: 'Turner v. Robinson 2 N. & M.829; 6 Car. & P. 15; 5 B. & Ad. 789; 39 R.R. 950 and many other cased, have shown that if a party, hired for a certain time, so conducts himself that he cannot give the consideration for his salary, he shall forfeit the current salary even for the time during which he has served.' See also Dhumee v. Sevenoaks 13 C. 80, Ramji v. F.D. Little 10 B.H.C.R. 57. The same principle applies when the servant refuses to work in the course of one of the periods for which the salary is due. The decision of the Court below is incorrect and on the findings the suit should have been dismissed. I grant the application and dismiss the suit with costs in both Courts.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //