An employee is entitled to damages for wrongful dismissal till the date of superannuation.

( 1 ) IN this suit the plaintiffs case is that in 1948 he was employed by the defendant as its Secretary at a salary of Rs. 750/- per month on a confirmed basis. Subsequently the defendant granted a car allowance to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month over and above the plaintiffs salary. Before joining the defendant company the plaintiff was holding a responsible position under Messrs. Birla Brothers Ltd. The plaintiff left that service and joined the defendant solely on promises and assurances made by or on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiffs services under the defendant would be of a permanent nature continuing as long as the plaintiff remained in a fit state of health able to discharge the duties of his office satisfactorily. On 30-9-1954 the defendant wrongfully terminated the plaintiff's service with effect from 1-10-1954 and refused to allow the plaintiff to remain in service under the defendant any longer. Due to the wrongful conduct of the defendant the plaintiff has suffered damages assessed at Rs. 20,000/- which the defendant has not paid. The plaintiff has claimed in this suit a decree for Rs. 20,000/-; alternatively, assessment of damages and decree for the sum so ascertained and costs.

( 2 ) THE defence, inter alia, is that there was no promise or assurance on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff s services would be of a permanent nature or that his services would continue as long as he remained in a fit state of health. The services of the plaintiff were duly terminated by a notice dated 30-9-1954. It is denied that the plaintiff has suffered any damages. In any event the damages claimed are exorbitant and excessive.

( 3 ) THE following issues were raised:1. Were any promises or assurances made or given on behalf of the defendant company that the plaintiffs service would be of a permanent nature as pleaded in paragraph 2 of the plaint? If so, what is the effect of such promises of assurances? 2. Was the termination of the plaintiff's service wrongful? 3. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?

( 4 ) IT is necessary in- the first instance to discuss the relevant portions of the evidence of Profulla Ranjaii Sarkar the plaintiff. He says that his brother Nalini Ranjan Sarkar who was the 'guiding spirit' of the Hindusthan Group of Companies died in January, 1933. Immediately after his death P. N. Talukdar the Special Director of the defendant who was also connected with the other concerns and his group started creating trouble and wanted to crush and victimise the brothers of Nalini Ranjan associated with these companies. Prafulla Ranjan's brother Promode Ranjan started criminal proceedings first before the Commissioner of Police and then before the Chief Presidency Magistrate. The persons accused of crime were P. N. Talukdar, N. N. Law both directors of the defendant, S. M. Basu a solicitor of this court and Amiya Chakravarty an accountant who has deposed before me in this suit. The petition of complaint disclosed certain facts which had nothing to do with the defendant company. It affected the defendant company in this way that the plaintiff was its Secretary and the plaintiff's nephew was in N. R. Sircar and Co. Ltd, and both the plaintiff and his nephew were dismissed. The plaintiff does not remember when the complaint was made to the police or when precisely the Chief Presidency Magistrate was moved The defendant's case is that complaint was made to the Police in October, 1953 and the proceedings before the Chief Presidency Magistrate started in December, 1953. Sometimes the plaintiff attended Court in connection with the proceedings, and also figured as a witness. One of the charges was forging of documents by the persons named above. The plaintiff went three or four times to the Magistrate's Court. He also made a statement to the Police who called at his residence. . There was a judicial enquiry before the matter was taken up by the Chief Presidency Mag