S. Abdul Nazeer, J.

This is a defendant's appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 4576/1995 dated 28.11.2006 on the file of the XIV Addl. City Civil Judge at Bangalore. The respondent is the plaintiff in the suit.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their respective rank before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,39,597/- with interest @ 21% p.a. It is the case of the plaintiff that he had joined the services of the defendant-Company as an Engineer and was working in their Bangalore branch throughout his tenure. The defendant is doing the business of consultancy pertaining to Engineering Services. The defendant as part of their business, takes up work overseas also. One such project was being taken by the defendant at Gillan, Iran. The plaintiff was directed to go to Gillan, to carry out the project of the defendant. As per the directions of the defendants, the plaintiff left to Iran on 17.04.1992 and completed the work within three months and returned to Bangalore. Plaintiff left the services of the defendant and he was relieved of his services on 15.12.1994. The defendant had laid down a policy regarding the allowances payable to the officials going on overseas. The defendant issued a circular dated 31.10.1991 providing the rate of allowances to different group of officials who go on overseas assignment. The plaintiff falls under group-IV. He was paid U.S. $ 432 at the time of departure to Iran by the defendant. Except the said payment, management had not paid him any other amount. He is entitled for allowances @ U.S.$ 65 a day. Towards boarding charges for two days at Teheran the plaintiff is entitled for U.S.$130. He stayed at a : Hotel at Gilan site from 19.04.1992 to 23.04.1992 and at Gilan up to 16.07.1992. As per the circular, he is entitled for payment of full allowances for first 30 days and for the next 30 days he is entitled to 80% of the allowance and for the period from 61 to 90 days the plaintiff is entitled to 60% of the allowance subject to a minimum of U.S.$ 58 per day. Thus, in all the plaintiff is entitled to total allowance of U.S. $ 5099. Despite repeated requests, the defendant has failed to pay the aforesaid amount. According to the plaintiff, he is entitled for the amount as under:

(1)	The difference of allowances payable for the assignment of Gilan, Iran Project :	Rs. 1,44,677/-
(2)	Interest thereon at 21% p.a. up to date :	Rs. 90,720/-
(3)	Leave encashment benefit :	Rs. 4,000/-
(4)	Notice charges :	Rs. 200/-
	TOTAL	Rs.2,39,597/-

4. The defendant has filed the written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is admitted by the defendant that plaintiff was posted to Iran to carry out certain project work. His stay at Iran as contended by the plaintiff was admitted. It is the case of the plaintiff that the circular referred to by the plaintiff is irrelevant for the present case as the said circular was meant for circulation amongst Senior Managers of the Company. The Company has a practise of publishing allowances and service conditions by issuing routine orders (notice) every week for the information of the employees. The overseas allowances that were notified for the information of the employees were also published by issuing Routine Order No. 52/91 for the week ending 27.12.1991. The allowances mentioned therein were in respect of business visits/short terms posting abroad for a period not exceeding 6 months as per the posting order. Therefore, the circular dated 31.10.1991 is not applicable. The plaintiff was aware of the routine order issued by the Company. The plaintiff was paid U.S. $ 432 at the time of departure to Iran. It is contended that the plaintiff is not entitled for any othe