Lord Thankerton-

In the present case the appellant, who appeals by special leave in forma pauperis, sues the respondent Bank for damages for wrongful dismissal and for a declaration that he was entitled to be paid a monthly pension of £39 4s. by the respondents. He appeals from a decision of the Supreme Court of Cyprus dated 27th March 1928, reversing the decision of the trial Judge. The appellant, who is a Christian Ottoman subject, entered the service of the Bank in April 1905, and remained in its service until 7th March 1927 when he was dismissed without notice and without pension, because of his refusal to conform to an order by the respondents in January 1927, for his transfer from the branch at Stamboul, where he was then employed, to the branch at Mersina, a town in the Asiatic provinces of Turkey on the south-east coast of Asia Minor.

The appellant maintains (1) that under the terms of his contract of service, the sphere of his employment did not include the provinces of Turkey, but only the Head Office and branches in Constantinople and its suburbs, which include Stamboul, and (2) esto that the provinces of Turkey were included, the particular order was unreasonable in view of his ignorance of Turkish and the hostile attitude of the Turkish civil authorities, and was one which he was not bound to obey.

On 25th January 1905, an advertisement (Ex. A-1 (1) appeared in the newspaper Stamboul in Constantinople, which stated :

“The Imperial Ottoman Bank offers under competitive examination five posts in its offices in Constantinople or in the provinces".

Among the subjects of examination set out in the advertisement was included "Languages spoken or written by the candidates and especially Turkish". The appellant, who was then in other employment in Constantinople, but did not know Turkish, applied and was among the successful candidates. In a minute of meeting of the respondents' Management Committee on 6th April 1905 (Ex. A-1 2) it is recorded :

“Staff; After inspection of the examination papers of the last competitive examination held, the General Management have decided to engage the following : An Michaelides, Joachim Levy, Josue Sinai, Jean Ouannou, Alex. Bouzourou, on the permanent staff at a salary of Ltq. 8 per month."

On 17th April 1905, the following decision (Ex. A-1 3) is found in the respondents' books :

“Decision No. 3186 : By decision of the Director-General dated 6th April 1905, Mr. Alex. Bouzourou is engaged in the Bank's service (Head Office) as from 17th April 1905, with salary Ltq. 8 per month,-the Director General, (Sgd.) J. Deffes."

On 20th April, the appellant subscribed the printed form of declaration of adherence to the regulations governing the “Pensions and Superannuation Fund", the provisions of which are therein stated to form an integral part of "my engagement in the Imperial Ottoman Bank.” (Ex. A. B. 1). While the terms of these regulations (Ex. A.B. 2-1) throw no direct light on the contractual sphere of the appellants' employment, it is to be noted that every employee of the Bank, on entering its service, is required to subscribe to them, the whole staff-whether employed in Constantinople or the provinces or abroad-being treated as a unit for the purposes of the Pension and Superannuation Fund. These are the only contemporaneous documents which are relevant to the consideration of the terms of the appellant's engagement, and they are all produced and founded on by the appellant in his evidence.

The appellant, who was the only witness on this point, states :

“saw a notice calling for candidates for employment in the defendant Bank. (Witness referred to Ex. A-11). This looks like the notice. There was a competitive examination. I said I knew no Turkish. I was successful in that examination. I was appointed at the Head Office in Constantinople at a salary of £. 8 a month; in the defendant's Department of General Correspondence (vide A-1 (2) and (3). At the time of entering service of defendant Bank, Mr.