JUDGMENT

DC D'Cotta J:

The plaintiff's claim is for arrears of salary due to him under a contract of employment with the defendants.

The facts of the case are briefly as follows. The plaintiff, Jamshid bin Ajmain, joined the defendants Auxiliary Force created under the provisions of s. 108 of the Port of Singapore Authority Act (Cap. 173) as a recruit on 1 October 1969 and was confirmed in the rank of constable on 1 April 1970: Agreement (AB1) refers. On 13 July 1974 the plaintiff was suspended from duty as a result of a charge against him under the provisions of s. 384 of the Penal Code (Cap. 103) - AB2 is the charge and AB3 is the letter of suspension.

The case came up for hearing before the Magistrate on 14 April 1975 when the plaintiff was discharged but such discharge did not amount to an acquittal - AB4. Subsequently he was served with a Defaulter Report on 30 June 1975 - AB5 - and in pursuance of this an inquiry was held under the provisions of Reg. 6(c) of the Auxiliary Police Regulations 1961 (hereinafter called the said Regulations). The plaintiff was acquitted.

From 1 October 1975 the solicitors for the plaintiff have been in communication with the Attorney General's Chambers, the Commissioner of Police and the defendants in an attempt to ascertain the plaintiff's position and whether or not he would be reinstated by virtue of the fact that he was acquitted at the disciplinary inquiry.

Nothing was heard from them and on 17 June 1976 the solicitors for the plaintiff wrote to the defendants enquiring whether or not the Plaintiff was still a member of the PSA Police Force. They replied on 30 August 1977 and I quote herewith para. 2 of their letter which is very relevant:

Whether or not your client is still a member of the PSA Police Force is a question of law to be ascertained in all the circumstances of this case.

Even at this late stage, the defendants were unable to clarify the plaintiff's position and as a result in October 1978 the plaintiff instituted the present proceedings

According to the statement of claim, the plaintiff is claiming salary due to him from July 1974 up to December 1978 amounting to RM33,199 and thereafter salary from month to month in accordance with the contract of employment.

Now the plaintiff's employment is governed by the terms of the said contract in AB1 and by the provisions of the said Regulations. According to AB1 the plaintiff if desirous of leaving, his employment, must give one month's notice to the defendants; similarly it must follow that if the defendants are desirous of terminating the plaintiff's services, they must give him one month's notice.

It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff's services were never terminated by the defendants. It will be observed that Reg. 8 of the said Regulations reads as follows:

If the Commissioner or a commanding officer deems it necessary in the public interest that an auxiliary police officer should cease to exercise the powers and functions of a police officer instantly, he may suspend such auxiliary police officer, pending any enquiry into his conduct under the provisions of these Regulations.

The above gives the defendants the power to suspend an officer from duty pending an enquiry into his conduct. Regulation 6 of the said Regulations gives the defendants power to dismiss the officer. Nowhere in the said regulations does it give the defendants power to withhold salary in the event of suspension. The effect of suspension when exercised operates to suspend the obligations of the parties for the duration of the period of suspension. This includes the employer's obligation to pay wages but if the employee is dismissed at the end of the period of suspension, the employer must pay the employee for that period unless there is provision to the contrary - see Friedman's Modern Law of Employment at p. 373.

Again in Warburton v. Taff Vale Railway Company [1920] 18 TLR 420 the defendants according to their rules reserved the right to dis