JUDGMENT Yorke, J. - This is an application u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against a judgment of the Additional Judge of the Small Cause Court of Lucknow. 2. The facts are simple and for the purpose of this application are not in dispute. The plaintiff Ram Krishna was a clerk of the present applicants on Rs. 15 per month. It has been found by the lower Court that on the 1st of June, 1939, the defendants applicants asked the plaintiff to work in future on a reduced pay of Rs; 13 per mensem. He refused to do so and was turned out by the present applicants. The applicants further did not pay to the plaintiff his salary for the month of May or anything in lieu of notice for his dismissal on the 1st June. In fact their contention was that it was the plaintiff who walked out, and not they who dismissed him. The learned Additional Judge of the Small Cause Court decreed the plaintiff's claim for Rs. 15 as pay for the month of May and for Rs. 15 one month's pay of June in lieu of notice. 3. The sole question which is raised in this application is whether the lower Court was right in giving a decree for one month's pay in lieu of notice. The learned Additional Judge of the Small Cause Court appears to have taken it for granted that the plaintiff was entitled to one month's pay in lieu of notice and has not discussed the question at all. It may be said at once that there is no decision of this Court on the point at issue. 4. On behalf of the plaintiff some reliance has been placed on Ralli Brothers v. Ambika Prasad (1912) 35 All. 132 at 133 where it was remarked that- the question is one between master and servant The plaintiff was engaged on a monthly salary, and he would therefore have been, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, entitled to one month's notice before dismissal. Equally his master was entitled to one month's notice before he left service. 5. This remark was made obiter and was not necessary for the decision of the particular question which was before the Court in that case. Equally his master was entitled to one month's notice before he left service. 5. This remark was made obiter and was not necessary for the decision of the particular question which was before the Court in that case. The learned Judge went on to refer to Smith's Law of Master and Servant to which I have therefore made a reference. In the 7th Edition of that Commentary at page 40 it is stated : In the absence of any definite agreement and of any custom in the trade or calling, the contract of service will be terminable by a reasonable notice. 6. The learned author goes on to show that very varied periods of notice have been held to be reasonable for different kinds of service. Bank clerks and clerks in the city of London have been held entitled to three months' notice but a clerk to a telegraphic company was held to be entitled to one month's notice. 7. My attention has been drawn on behalf of the applicants to the case of Ganga Ram v. Duni Chand Bhandari AIR 1925 Lahore. 186 in which it was held that the ordinary rule of law is that in the absence of any express agreement or established custom to the contrary the contract of service is terminable by reasonable notice. A servant paid by the month is not entitled to one month's notice. 8. The plaintiff in that case was employed as a monthly servant in an Ice Factory on a salary of Rs. 60 per mensem. There is nothing to show whether he was a mechanic or a clerk but he was at any rate a man of considerable status and not a mere menial. In that case there is a reference to two Burma cases. In the former of these E. M. Moola v. K.C. Bose (1916) 8 LBR 420 : 33 I.C. 981 it was held that in the case of a clerk hired by the month, 15 days' notice was sufficient. In the other case, David v. Superintendent St. Anthony High School (1921) 13 Bur. L.T. 168 : 63 I.C. 982 it was held that there was no authority for holding that a servant paid by the month was entitled to a month's notice. In the other case, David v. Superintendent St. Anthony High School (1921) 13 Bur. L.T. 168 : 63 I.C. 982 it was held that there was no authority for holding that a servant paid by the month was entitled to a month's notice. The view taken in Ganga Ram's case (2) was followed by another single Judge of the same High Court in Lata Rata Ram v. Baij Nath Joshi AIR 1937 Lah 697 in which the view taken was that: in the absence of an express agreement or established custom to the contrary a contract of service is terminable by reasonable notice, and there is no authority for holding that a servant hired by the month is entitled to one month's notice. Ordinarily 15 days' notice would be sufficient in such circumstances, 9. The plaintiff in this particular case was a clerk of a trust employed on a salary of Rs. 50 per mensem. 10. It seems to me clear that so far as reported cases of this country go there is no doubt that 15 days' notice is to be taken as reasonable notice for an ordinary clerk employed on Rs. 15 per mensem. 11. The only other point raised on behalf of the plaintiff opposite-party is that this point was not specifically taken either in the answer to the notices served on the defendants by the plaintiff or in the oral pleadings on which the issues were framed. It does not appear to me that that is a sufficient reason for not allowing the present application once it is held that the plaintiff is only entitled to reasonable notice and that reasonable notice is only 15 days. I accordingly allow this application and modify the order of the 12. Judge of the Small Cause Court and direct that the suit be decreed for Rs. 22-8-0 instead of Rs. 30 with proportionate costs of the trial Court. The plaintiff opposite-party was certainly not in any way to blame for the fact that the learned Judge did not consider the question of what was or was not reasonable notice, and I therefore make no order as to costs of this Court.