Tapan Kumar Dutt, J. - (1.) The respondent in this appeal filed a suit being Money Suit No. 293 of 1989 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta against the appellants (defendants in the suit) praying inter alia for a decree for recovery of Rs.61,165/- and interest at the rate of 18% on the said sum.
(2.) The case of the respondent was to the effect that the respondent was appointed as a Works Manager by the appellant No.1 by virtue of a letter of appointment dated 17th February, 1987 for the Calcutta factory on certain terms and conditions. The intial probationary period was six months and it was stipulated in the letter of appointment that after the completion of such probationary period the service of the respondent will be confirmed if the respondent's performance was found satisfactory, otherwise, the probationary period will be automatically extended for another six months or the employment may stand automatically terminated. The further case of the respondent was that on 16th June, 1988 the respondent received a letter dated 15th June, 1988 issued by the defendant/appellant No.2 whereby the respondent's appointment was sought to be determined with immediate effect and the respondent was asked to collect his dues from the office of the appellants.
(3.) The plaintiff/respondent's case is that the plaintiff/respondent was not paid his salary and other benefits from 1st June, 1987 onwards inspite of repeated demands having been made in this regard by the plaintiff/ respondent. The plaintiff has alleged that he has served a notice dated 28th June, 1988 upon the defendants/appellants demanding a certain sum of money but no reply was given to such notice. The plaintiff has made the claim in the suit on account of arrear salary, bonus, pay in lieu of two months' notice and one month leave salary in lieu of unavailed leave. The plaintiff has further stated in his plaint that the statement made by the defendants in the letter of termination to the effect that the plaintiff/respondent did not attend duties since a day before the labour agitation is false and it is the plaintiff/respondent's case that the plaintiff had at material times acted according to the instructions of the defendants/appellants.;