The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff provided sufficient evidence to support the claims for privilege leave and notice pay, and the defendant's arguments were found to be invalid.

ARAVIND KUMAR, J.-Appellant-plaintiff is in appeal challenging the correctness and legality of judgment and decree passed by XXX Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 7740/2000 dated 04.08.2009, whereunder suit of plaintiff for recovery of money has been dismissed.

2. Heard Sri. B.C. Seetharama Rao, learned counsel appearing for appellant-plaintiff and Sri. Somashekar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of M/s. S.N. Murthy Associates for respondent-defendant. Perused the judgment and decree passed by Trial Court as well as records of Trial Court.

3. Sri. B.C. Seetharama Rao, learned counsel appearing for appellant would contend that Trial Court committed a serious error in dismissing the suit filed by plaintiff by concluding that there is no evidence to prove that plaintiff had issued three months prior notice to defendant before his resignation, on the ground that such an issue never arose and he also contends when defendant themselves had paid three months salary by calculating the basic salary and not the gross salary question of plaintiff proving this fact did not arise at all. He would elaborate his submission by contending that Trial Court erred in arriving at a conclusion that plaintiff had failed to prove that he had 240 days of privilege leave to his credit as on 10.01.2000 and said finding is contrary to material evidence available on record namely Exhibits P-11 and P-12, which are the salary slips of plaintiff issued by defendant itself for the months of November and December 1999 which would indicate that plaintiff had 244 days of privilege leave to his credit. He would also contend that Trial Court committed an error in holding that under Clause 3 of Personal Policy Manual Revision-05 would govern the plaintiff to arrive at a conclusion that encashment of privilege leave will be based on basic salary, on the ground that said revision has been issued on 01.08.2000, i.e., after seven months after plaintiff was relieved from services of defendant-company and as such it was not binding on plaintiff. He also submits that no such policy was made known to plaintiff despite his request as per Ex. P.6 letter dated 9.5.2000. He also contends that Trial Court erred in not considering the contents of Exhibit P-13 namely, the Personnel Policy-Leave Rules-Staff Members dated 01.07.1999 which was the service condition, which was in force on the date on which plaintiff resigned, which provides for calculation required to be adopted for settling retiral benefits. Hence, he contends that based on Exhibit P-13 benefits had to be paid to plaintiff and it was required to be calculated as such and not based on Exhibit P-14, which came into vogue subsequent to plaintiff being relieved from services. As such, he prays for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by Trial Court and for decreeing the suit as prayed for.

4. Per contra, Sri Somashekar, learned counsel appearing for respondent-defendant would support the judgment and decree passed by Trial Court and contends that even as per Exhibit P-13, accumulation of banked leave would be maximum for 90 days period and an employee will not be given at any one time PL in excess of 2 years accumulation, but due to oversight the Finance Division of defendant-company calculated the leave encashment by taking into consideration 225 days, which itself was erroneous and as such, excess amount came to be paid to plaintiff and this fact has been brought to the notice of defendant by reply notice dated 27.07.2000 and as such, he submits that defendant is not entitled for decree towards leave encashment. He would also submit that plaintiff did not demonstrate before Trial Court for having submitted letter of his intention to resign by giving three months notice and as such there is no justification on the part of plaintiff in demanding notice of pay (3 months) and de hors said defence, on humanitarian grounds defendant had paid a sum of Rs. 40,050/- towards three months notice per