On both the points, the lower appellate Court has rightly concurred with the findings of the trial Court, that is, as to the wrongful termination of the services and as to the plaintiff’s right to recover salary. Section 41 (of Madras Act XXXVI of 1947) is clear that it is incumbent on the employer to show that there was reasonable cause for dispensing the services of a person and a mere notice is insufficient; and if the dispensing of the services is for any misconduct, an enquiry must be held and the charge of misconduct supported by satisfactory evidence. Neither of these conditions has been complied with and the termination, therefore, of the services of the plaintiff could not be supported. I do not think that to claim salary for the period subsequent to the wrongful termination of services, any declaration is necessary. The view which found favour with the lower appellate Court is that by reason of the finding that the termination of the services was wrongful, the employee continues in service and he is entitled to salary and not for damages. The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.

No leave.

P.R.N. ----- Appeal dismissed.