The defendant No.1 executed a contract requiring him to serve the plaintiff for five years after the training and defendant No.2 stood surety for him. According to the case of the plaintiff, it was agreed that the defendants would compensate the plaintiff for all expenses incurred by the Company in training the defendant No.1. By the same agreement, the assessment by the plaintiff-company as to the amount spent on training was final and binding on the defendant. The defendant No.1 was taken in regular employment after the training period was over on 20-3-1962. However, on 1-8-1962, he went on leave and thereafter he resigned from the services under his letter, Ex.P-5 dated 25-9-1962. The defendant No. 1 not having served the plaintiff for a period of five years as agreed, is sued for the amounts spent on his training. The defendant No.2 is made liable as a surety.

2. The lower Court came to the conclusion that the amount claimed was by way of compensation which the defendants were bound to pay, they having committed breach of the terms of the agreement. The first appellate Court came to the same conclusion. The damages were not by way of penalty so as to attract section