JUDGMENT :- This second appeal raises the question as to the correct principles applicable in determining the quantum of damages to be given to a dismissed employee on a finding that the dismissal is wrongful. The respondent, when he was acting as the secretary of the appellant bank, was, by an order of the latter dated 5-4-1958, dismissed from service. Though he applied under Sec. 41 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, he did not pursue that remedy. He instituted the suit, out of which this second appeal arises, for a declaration that the order of dismissal was illegal and that he was entitled to reinstatement with all his rights and privileges, and for recovery of a certain specified sum apparently as arrears of salary. Alternatively, he also asked for damages for wrongful dismissal. That the respondents dismissal from service was wrongful is no longer in question in this court. Both the courts below held that the respondent was entitled to damages for wrongful dismissal out the lower appellate court on appeal by the respondent practically doubled the quantum of damages awarded by the trial court. The appellant-bank contends that while it does not dispute t