Empress of India Cotton Mills Co. vs Naffer chunder Roy

Maclean, C.J.—This rule raises a very short point The Plaintiff was a workman in the Empress of India Cotton Mills Co., Ld. It is proved that one of the terms of the contract between him self and his employers was that each workman should give 15 days'' notice before leaving the Company''s service, and in default, forfeit all arrears of wages. There is nothing illegal, nothing contrary to public policy in a clause of that nature. The Plaintiff was engaged at a certain rate of wages with the provision which I have just read, which is admittedly one of the rules and regulations for workmen employed by the Company, and it must be taken to have formed a term of the contract entered into between the parties. This is not disputed. What has happened is this. The Plaintiff worked during the month of March, and he worked up to the 20th April and then went away without giving any notice. The Court below has found that he has committed a breach of the contract and that he did go away without giving 15 days'' or any notice. Then he sues for the wages of March and 20 days of April. The question is whether he is entitled to recover anything and what? It was proved by the Plaintiff himself in the Court below and his learned vakil does not dispute that, although no certified copy of the evidence has been adduced, the evidence read by the counsel for the Defendant was correct, that according to the custom and practice of the Company, which was well known to the Plaintiff himself, the wages were not payable until the 22nd of April. The whole amount then sued for, were arrears of wages and liable to be forfeited in accordance with the contract, as the 15 days'' notice had not been given. I think it is plain that the Plaintiff cannot successfully maintain this suit for these arrears. The Munsif has given him a decree for these arrears, but for some reason, which I am unable to appreciate, has accorded the Defendant what he calls compensation under sec. 74 of the Contract Act for the Plaintiffs breach of contract. That section does not appear to me to have any application to the present case.

The rule must be made absolute, and the order of the Court below set aside, and the suit dismissed; but as the Company generously do not press for costs either of the rule or of the suit, there will be no costs. The amount deposited as security for staying execution must be returned.