The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prospective transferee under Section 5(g) of the Electricity Act has the right to 'work' the concern pending the completion of the sale, and a change of masters prima facie puts an end to all personal contracts with the new master unless a new agreement is reached with mutual consent.

Bose, J—The plaintiff was the Manager and Engineer of the Electric Supply Works, Wardha, a concern which supplied electrical energy to the town of Wardha. The defendant is the Electric Light and Power Company, Nagpur. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant company took over the management of the Wardha concern on 1st January 1941, by an order of Government dated 21st December 1940 made under Section 5(g), Electricity Act (Act 9 of 1910); that when it did so the services of all the employees of the Wardha concern, including those of the plaintiff, were continued on the same terms as before. This occurred in two ways, first, automatically under the law, and second, by reason of an express contract which is contained in a circular letter dated 2nd January 1941 (Ex. P-2) issued by the defendant company's Chief Engineer and Manager to all employees including the plaintiff. On the evening of the same day (2nd January 1941) the plaintiff was ordered by the said Chief Engineer and Manager to report himself in person at Nagpur, on 3rd January 1941, either to the said Chief Engineer and Manager (whom I will refer to as the Manager in future), or to his main foreman. This order is contained in Ex. P-3. The plaintiff obeyed. At Nagpur the plaintiff asked the Manager for a daily allowance of Rs. 2-10-0 for lodging and boarding, Rs. 2 for conveyances and six annas for miscellaneous expenses: total Rs. 5 per day. This was refused. The plaintiff thereupon told the Manager that he was unable to stay at Nagpur without such allowance and so returned to Wardha the same night, (3rd January 1941), and resumed his duties at Wardha on 4th January 1941. He worked for two days and then was told by the acting Resident Engineer at Wardha that his services had been terminated by the Manager. This, according to the plaintiff, amounted to wrongful dismissal and so he claims Rs. 271-13-0, being Rs. 130 salary for the month of January 1941, and Rs. 130 for February in lieu of notice, Rs. 2-11-0 for interest, Rs. 6-8-0 railway fare from Wardha to Nagpur and back, and Rs. 2-10-0 allowance for the plaintiff's stay at Nagpur on 3rd January 1941.

2. Most of these facts are admitted, but the defendant denies that the plaintiff's services were continued as before when the defendant company took over from the Wardha Works and the defendant also denies in one part of its written statement that there was any dismissal. The defendant's case is that the plaintiff voluntarily resigned on 3rd January 1941, and that this resignation was accepted by the defendant's Manager on the spot. The defendant's case is that when it took over from the Wardha Works on 1st January 1941, it issued the circular letter referred to above to all the employees of the Wardha Works, including the plaintiff, and informed them that each was to carry on his duties as before ''unless otherwise directed.'' The plaintiff was otherwise directed. His services at Wardha were terminated and another resident engineer, one Birdy, was installed in his place. But instead of dismissing him altogether, as the defendant contends it was entitled to do, it offered the plaintiff similar employment at Nagpur. It was for this purpose that the plaintiff was ordered to report himself at Nagpur. The plaintiff refused the alternative and resigned.

3. I will deal first with the plaintiff's contention that when the defendant company took over from the Wardha Works, the plaintiff's services were automatically continued on the old terms because of Section 5(g), Electricity Act. Section 5 deals with a position in which a licensee under the Electricity Act is required by the Provincial Government to sell its undertaking. It is admitted that that was the position here. Section 5(g) provides for the contingency which arises when the sale is not completed within the time fixed. The section is in these terms:

If the licensee has been required to sell the undertaking and if the sale has not been completed by the date fixed