The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff's dismissal was wrongful, and he was entitled to damages for wrongful dismissal, salary, and the full amount of his provident fund credit.

JUDGMENT

Gentle, J. - In this suit the plaintiff claims (1) damages for wrongful dismissal (2) the amount due to him which he alleges was about Rs. 6500 on 1st October 1935 from the Corporation Provident Fund. An amendment of the plaint, which I have allowed, in regard to the relief claimed also raises a claim for salary from 1st October 1935 until 14th July 1941 or until 18th February 1942. The claim for salary was originally pleaded in para. 11 of the plaint as damages for wrongful dismissal and not as salary simpliciter. In their written statement, the defendants admit that the plaintiff was dismissed from their service and allege that such dismissal was justified by reason of the misconduct of the plaintiff in the course of his service with them. They state that a sum of Rs. 5727/13 is credited in the plaintiff's account of the Provident Fund of which Rs. 2869-5-0 represents the amount of his own contribution to the fund and which latter amount they were and are still willing to pay to him, and that it is the only sum payable to the plaintiff under the Provident Fund rules. It is also pleaded that the suit is not maintainable since notice was not given pursuant to Section 538, Calcutta Municipal Act, previous to its institution and also that the suit is barred by limitation. No payment into Court has been made.

2. The plaintiff entered the defendants' services in 1909 as an apprentice. In 1914 he became a permanent servant of the corporation. In 1935 he held the appointment of Water Works Sub-Inspector at a salary of Rs. 100 per month. On 1st April 1935 Garden Reach, in the suburbs of Calcutta, was created a municipality and it was separated from the Calcutta Corporation. The plaintiff's services were lent to the Garden Reach Municipality upon its separation and his salary was then paid by the municipality and not by the Calcutta Corporation. The plaintiff was suspended as from 1st October 1935 and he was purported to be dismissed from 29th May 1936, notification of dismissal being given to him on 10th June following. Prior to the creation of the Garden Reach Municipality this district was supplied with water from the corporation tube-wells at Kailasarak, the Dock and Hastings. It was carried in lorries, some being owned by the corporation and others were hired from contractors. Payment to contractors was made according to the number of journeys made by the lorries. The tube-wells were in charge of employees, called drivers, who kept records of each lorry journey in log books from which the measurement book was prepared each month. The measurement book was countersigned by an overseer and by the Superintendent of the Water Works. The contractors' bills were rendered each month and were checked with the measurement book. The tube-wells and their drivers were under the supervision of a Water Works Sub-Inspector and, up to 31st March 1935, the plaintiff was responsible for the Kailasarak tube-well with which this suit alone is concerned, and reference to which is solely required. The driver of this well was a man named Khudiram Chakravarti. It was the plaintiff's duty each day to visit the tube-well, write his initials at the foot of the previous day's entry, and each month to prepare the measurement book from Khudiram's log books. The correctness of the log book and the measurement book is manifestly required in order that the contractors should not be paid for more journeys than those which their lorries had made. If excess or fictitious journeys are entered in the log books and the measurement books it will follow that the corporation will pay for journeys which were not carried out. If the tube-well driver is in league with the contractors the excess journeys entered in the log books will result in illicit mutual profits, at the expense of the corporation, being received by them. The same result will follow if, in addition, the Water Works Sub-Inspector is party to the entry of fictitious journeys in the log and measurement