The dismissal of an employee is wrongful if it is not in accordance with the terms of the contract of employment, but it is not illegal if it is not in violation of any law.

( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiff's appeal from the judgment and decree of S. K. Dutta, J. dismissing the plaintiff's suit with costs on the ground of limitation under Article 115 of the Limitation Act.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff sued two defendants the first is the Indian Airlines Corporation and the second defendant is Bharat Commerce and Industries Limited. The claim in the plaint is for damages for wrongful dismissal. The plaintiff claims salary from November 1952 to 6th February 1956 at the rate of Rs. 16840-0 per month including dearness allowance amounting to Rs. 6611-5-0 and other benefits of service including air passage amounting to Rupees 5001 and travelling allowances amounting to Rs. 1502. The total claim of the plaintiff is for Rs. 13,114-5-0.

( 3 ) THE actual reliefs claimed by the plaintiff are interesting. His claim is for a declaration that the order contained in the letter dated 2nd January 1953 terminating the plaintiff's service to be null and void, illegal, wrongful and a nullity with no effect. The second relief is for an order that the order contained in the letter of the 2nd January 1953 be annulled and set aside. The third relief is for a declaration that the plaintiff's service was not terminated. The next part of the relief claimed is for a declaration that the plaintiff has become, as from the appointed date under Section 16 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953, an employee of the Indian Airlines Corporation. Series of alternative prayers are made. The first is for Rs. 1,55,442 from the defendant corporation or from the defendant company as damages for wrongful dismissal, in addition to the said sum of Rupees 13,114-5-0. Incidental reliefs regarding Provident Fund money, injunction etc. are also claimed.

( 4 ) EIGHT Issues were raised before the learned trial Judge. The issues were as follows:1. Was the dismissal of the plaintiff illegal, void or nullity as alleged in paragraph 19 of the plaint? 2. Was the termination of the plaintiff's service by the letter dated 2nd January 1953 wrongful? 3. In view of the provisions of Air Corporations Act, 1953 is the defendant No. 2 Viable to the plaintiff in any way? 4. Was the plaintiff in employment of Messrs. Bharat Airways Ltd. immediately before August 1, 1953, as alleged in paragraph 20 of the plaint? 5. Did the defendant No. 2 comply with the requirements of Section 22 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953? 6. Has the claim of the plaintiff become barred by limitation? 7. Is the plaintiff entitled to Provident Fund due from the defendant No. 1 as alleged in paragraph 22 of the plaint? 8. To what other relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?

( 5 ) ON behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself gave evidence as well as one Dr. Sarkar. On behalf of the defendant company, evidence was given by Chiranjilal Kezriwal, the then Superintendent of Stores, Malhar Kasinath Paralika, the then Chief Store-Keeper, Mohanlal Chandalia, the then Deputy Chief Store-Keeper and Iswari Prosad Saha, Cashier of defendant No. 2. There was documentary evidence in the shape of correspondence and documents.

( 6 ) THE learned Judge came to the conclusion ou Issue No. 1 that the dismissal was not illegal or void or a nullity. But he held on issue No. 2 that the dismissal was wrongful. On the third issue he held that the defendant company was not liable in so far as they supplied information and particulars of the arrears of salary amounting to Rs. 113/14/- and therefore the defendant company not having supplied the information would be liable for the difference between the total amount of salary due less the said sum of Rs. 113-14-0. The learned Judge also decided that if the suit had succeeded otherwise, the defendant corporation would have been liable for damages under Section 17 (4) of the Air Corporations Act and the defendant company would not have been liable therefor. On the 4th issue the learned trial Judge found that the plaintiff was dismissed on the 7th January 1