Ramachandra Ayyar, J.
1. This second appeal arises from the decree of District Judge of Salem in A.S. No. 360 of 1954 affirming the decree of the District Munsif of Salem in 0.8. No 323 of 1953.
The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed a suit out of which this appeal arises for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,183-7-4 representing the arrears of salary from 18 November 1951 to 8 February 1953 and bonus payable to him for two years 1950-51 and 1951-52.
2. The appellant was employed as a godown keeper in the respondent-society since October 1943. His service was terminated by an order, dated 17 November 1951, by the society. There was an appeal at the instance of the appellant to the Assistant Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, under Section 41 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, and that officer set aside the order of the respondent as illegal. Thereupon the respondent-society re-entertained the appellant from 8 February 1953. The appellant has filed the present suit for the recovery of the amount aforesaid for the period during which he was not allowed to be in service by the wrongful order of the respondent.
3. The respondent contested the claim on the ground that the order of the reinstatement did not entitle the appellant to claim arrears of salary for the period. Both the Tower courts have held that the appellant would not be entitled to the arrears of salary claimed except for a small sum of Rs. 78 and dismissed the suit. The appellant has filed the present appeal.
4. Mr. A. Ramachandran on behalf of the appellant contends that the order of the respondent-society terminating the service of the appellant having been set aside as Illegal by the authority constituted under the Madras Shops and Establishments Act it should be deemed to be non-existent and the appellant should be deemed to have been in the service of the respondent-society. It may be that he was not actually doing service under the society, but that was the result of the wrongful act of the respondent and not attributable to any default of the appellant.
5. Therefore he contends, the appellant is entitled to the amount claimed.
6. On behalf of the respondent Mr. Chinnayya Pillai contends that the service of the appellant was only a temporary one and that as the order of the Commissioner did not provide for the payment of arrears of salary, he would not be entitled to any relief.
7. I cannot agree with this contention. The effect of setting aside the order of the respondent-society terminating the service of the appellant was that he continued to be in service. If he continued to be in service he should be paid his salary. It Is not the case of the respondent that they terminated his service by any other order except the impugned one. In this connation I may refer to a decision of this Court reported in Balasundaram Mudaliar v. Ellappa Mudaliar (1957) 1 M. L.J. 7. I am of opinion that the termination' in' the present case being wrongful, the employee must be deemed to have continued in service without a break and that he would be entitled to the salary for which he filed the suit. The result is that the appellant will be entitled to the decree as prayed for with costs throughout. Court-fee due to the Government to be paid by the respondent.
8. Leave refused.