Pratibha Bonnerjea, J. - (1.) The respondent was appointed by the appellant for loading, unloading and transporting foodgrains at the godowns of the appellant at Cossipore and Grey Street, Calcutta, for a period of two years from 7.3.69 to 6.3.71. the contract did not contain ant term guaranteeing that the appellant would allot any definite volume of work to the respondent every month but the appellant was under the obligation to allot work for which the respondent would be entitled to a minimum remuneration per month. Clauses XIV (a) and XIV (b) of the Tender contained the aforesaid terms. At the time of execution of the instant contract, the amount of money to be paid by the appellant to the respondent by way of minimum remuneration was left blank in Clause XIV (b) of the contract. The appellant allotted work to the respondent upto 29.3.70 and the respondent carried, loaded and unloaded the same and for the works done, became entitled to receive Rs. 30,60,746.09p. The appellant duly paid the said sum to the respondent. Thereafter the appellant did not any work at all to the respondent during the unexpired period of the contract, i.e. from 30.3.70 to 6.3.71. the appellant also did not cancel the said contract which remained in force.
(2.) Under the aforesaid circumstances, the respondent instituted a suit in this Court against the appellant for recovery of damages, being suit No. 285 of 1972 claiming Rs. 68,696.28p for loss of profit suffered by him for the unexpired period of the contract. Alternatively he claimed a decree on the basis that he was entitled to receive minimum remuneration of Rs. 7,500 per month for the entire unexpired period. In further alternative, he prayed for an enquiry into damages and decree for the amount found due to him from the appellant upon such enquiry. The appellant contested the said suit. On 3.8.77, by the consent of the parties, the learned Trial Judge referred the matter to a Special Referee for deciding the issue framed as follows : " What are the damages suffered by the plaintiff, if any, for breach of the agreement by non-supply of work to the plaintiff during the period from May 30, 1970 to March 6, 1971 in terms of the tender and / or agreement between the parties."
(3.) From this order it becomes that the breach of contract by the appellant was an admitted fact. Mr. P.K. Paul, Barrister-at-Law was appointed as the Special Referee for the purpose of ascertaining the quantum suffered by the plaintiff the respondent herein.;