Ong CJ:

The appellant, a master cutter in the tailoring department of Gian Singh & Company, had been in the service of the respondent's late father and then the respondent for almost two score years, since 1926. He is now 68. He had two short spells of illness in 1960 and 1963 during which he was paid his full salary. On 12 June 1965 he suffered from angina pectoris and diabetes and was admitted into hospital. Except for short breaks he remained there till November 1965. After his discharge he went in December to see the respondent about resumption of his duties. As a result of what took place he continued to stay away from work until 23 February 1966 when he retired from the respondent's service by mutual consent. Prior thereto he had not been given any notice terminating his employment. He had not been paid any salary since 1 July 1965. A claim for retirement benefits being rejected by his former employer, the appellant issued a writ on 29 June 1966 claiming inter alia eight months' unpaid salary at $600 per month and compensation upon his retirement. His claim was dismissed by the Judge and he now appeals to this Court.

The decision of the learned trial Judge turned solely on a question of fact. After setting out the circumstances leading to the appellant's retirement the Judge said:

If those were the only facts of the case, it would be fairly simple to come to a decision on the claim, but at the beginning of 1963 a new element was introduced affecting the terms and conditions of service of all the employees

the firm. The evidence shows that the employees of the firm formed themselves into a union of employees which became affiliated to the National Union of Commercial Workers. The plaintiff was one of the members of the employees' union during its inception and was apparently instrumental in getting the union and the management to agree to negotiate new terms and conditions of service for the employees. On 30 January 1963, the Union and the company signed a collective agreement which stipulated inter alia, for salary during the period of illness, medical expenses and retiring benefits. The plaintiff was apparently not satisfied with the terms negotiated by the union and as a result he ceased to be a member of the union and had consistently refused to accept any of the benefits conferred by the agreement .... At the time the collective agreement was signed, the plaintiff was still a member of the union and since the agreement makes specific provision regarding wages during the period of illness, retiring benefits, etc., the question if the rights of the plaintiff has ceased to be a matter of implication.

In holding the collective agreement binding on the appellant I regret to say that the Judge was in error. He had misread the evidence. According to the appellant he was only for a few months in 1962 a member of the union; he came to know of the terms of the agreement but found them unacceptable; as a result he "ceased paying union subscriptions three or four months prior to February 1963". This fact was corroborated by an independent witness, Bahari Lal Sharma, who was an employee of the respondent for the past 17 years and chairman, since 1962, of the Gian Singh Section of the National Union of Commercial Workers. He said:

Plaintiff attended all meetings of the union up to December 1962 .... Since December 1962 he has not paid his subscription. He left because he did not agree with the terms of the agreement.

The agreement, it may be observed, was not signed till 30 January 1963 - after the appellant's resignation from the union. Consequently the collective agreement could not rightly be held binding on the appellant who, at all relevant times, was not a member of the union.

The appellant's salary claim was for the eight months from July 1965 to February 1966, covering the period of his hospitalisation and enforced convalescent leave. He stated that when he reported back for duty on 23 December 1965 he