JUDGMENT 1. - Respondent Mahendra Kumar filed suit against the defendant-appellant Kamal Auto Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur claiming relief for the recovery of the following amounts: "1. Salary at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- for July, August and up to 15th September 1987 7,500.00 2. Amount of annual-grade-increment at the rate of Rs. 200/- for May, June, July, August and up to 15th September 1987 900.00 3. House-rent at the rate of 500/- per month for the period from July up to 15-9-1987 1,200.00 4. Conveyance allowance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month 500.00 5. One month's Ex-gratia Payment 3,000.00 6. 45 days' salary in lieu of leave 4,800.00 Total: 17,950.00 In addition, the plaintiff claimed Rs. 23,400/- for illegal termination vide notice published in the Rajasthan Patrika. The plaintiff claimed interest at the rate of 18% amounting to Rs. 3,721.50 ps. and, further claimed Rs. 50,000/ - as damages. Thus the plaintiff claimed in total Rs. 95,071.50 ps but confined the claim in contest to Rs. 50,9001- for the sake of valuation and undertook to pay the extra court-fee in case recovery of the amount of damages was decreed so as to increase the decretal-amount beyond the confined claim. 2. The suit was filed on the allegations that the plaintiff was an employee of Udaipur Cement Works, Udaipur, he was approached by the defendant-firm's Managing Director Azad Lodha to join the defendant-firm as Chief Executive Officer. On the request of the Managing Director 4nd on his persuasion, the plaintiff resigned from the Udaipur Cement Works and joined the defendant-firm. As per the agreement entered into, the defendant-appellant on 19-4-1986 issued an appointment-order. giving appointment to the plaintiff for five years on a monthly salary of Rs. 3,000/- with other' benefits. Under the terms of appointment, the plaintiff's services could have been terminated by giving six month's notice. The plaintiff was not given any notice and the defendant-firm terminated the plaintiff -s services by publishing a notice on 15-9-1987 in the Rajasthan Patrika with effect from 7-9-1987. As the services were terminated contrary to the terms of the agreement without payment of salary, the plaintiff filed this suit. 3. According to the defence, the plaintiff-respondent had joined the services of his own. In fact, he was given employment only because he was a close relation of the Managing Director of the Firm, Shri Azad Lodha. As the services were terminated contrary to the terms of the agreement without payment of salary, the plaintiff filed this suit. 3. According to the defence, the plaintiff-respondent had joined the services of his own. In fact, he was given employment only because he was a close relation of the Managing Director of the Firm, Shri Azad Lodha. The plaintiff's work was never satisfactory and he was given warning for the said time to time. He himself stopped coming to the factory since 4-9-1987 and, therefore, his services were terminated by publication of the notice dated 15-9-1987. The defendant-appellant has made a counter-claim as the plaintiff caused damages to the firm. According to the defendant, a loader of the Rajasthan State Mineral Development Corporation, Udaipur came for over-hauling and repairs to the company, which was sent to the Allied Engineering Services, Udaipur. The plaintiff manipulated the pay-order to be sent directly to the Allied Engineering Services and thus caused damage to the company which had already spent a suns of Rs. 3,017.28 ps. towards the repairs. The plaintiff further entered wrong figures in the job-cards and has caused loss to the company to the tune of Rs. 2,273;'-. Although the plaintiff has not purchased medicines but he has claimed reimbursement and caused loss of Rs. 379/ - to the company. On these allegations, the defendant pressed counter-claim for a sum of R,. 12,196.28 ps. It is, however, admitted by the company in the written-statement that the salary of the plaintiff for the months of August, 1987 and 3 days of September 1987 was withheld by the company fox the adjustment of the loss caused to the company by the plaintiff. Thus the plaintiff is not entitled to any decree. 4. The trial court has held that under the terms of the appointment, the plaintiff was entitled for a salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month with yearly increment of Rs. 200/-.The plaintiff's appointment was for five years, the plaintiff was also entitled to Rs.200/- towards conveyance allowance, Rs. 500/- towards house-rent allowance per month, leave salary for 45 days in a year, and reimbursement for the medical expenses. The appointment-order further incorporates the term that the agreement may be terminated by either party by giving six months' notice in writing without assigning any reason or without any liability as to compensation. 500/- towards house-rent allowance per month, leave salary for 45 days in a year, and reimbursement for the medical expenses. The appointment-order further incorporates the term that the agreement may be terminated by either party by giving six months' notice in writing without assigning any reason or without any liability as to compensation. Under the terms of the contract of services, the plaintiff is entitled to six months' salary as his services were terminated without giving six months' notice; the plaintiff is also entitled to his due wages for the months of July and August and 7 days of Sept., one month's ex gratia payment; and, amount for 45 days' leave-salary. The trial Court accordingly decreed the suit as under: 1- ekg ebZ o twu 87 dh osru o`f) dh jkf'k 400&00 2- ekg tqykbZ o vxLr] 87 ds osru dh jkf'k 7]800&00 3- flrEcj 87 ds 7 fnu ds osru dh jkf'k 910&00 4- ,d ekg dk ,Dlxzsf'k;k osru dh jkf'k 3]000&00 5- 45 iSrkfyl fnu ds yho ,uds'kesaV dh jkf'k 4]500&00 6- N% ekg dk uksfVl vof/k dh jkf'k 19]200&00 ;ksx %& 35]810&00 5. The only point which has been canvassed by the counsel for the appellant is that as the plaintiff has left the services on his own he could not have been granted the salary for six months tinder the terms of the agreement of service. It may be seen that according to the defendant-appellant as pleaded in the written-statement, the plaintiff has served with the company upto 3-9-1987 and, thereafter, he has not attended his duties from 4-9-1987: but, in tho notice published in the paper dated 15-9-1987, the plaintiff's services were terminated from 7-9-1987. Thus according to the defendant-appellant the plaintiff has worked upto 6-9-1987 when his services were terminated. It is difficult to appreciate that the plaintiff's services could have been terminated for his not attending the duties from 4-9-1987 to.6-9-1987 holding it to be his unwillingness to join duties. No reasonable man can draw an inference that a person who has not attended the duties for four days only has left the job on his own and is not willing to join his duties. On the evidence on record, I do not find that the defendant-appellant was right in saying that the plaintiff has left the job of his own and, therefore, he is not entitled to salary for six months. On the evidence on record, I do not find that the defendant-appellant was right in saying that the plaintiff has left the job of his own and, therefore, he is not entitled to salary for six months. The findings recorded by the trial court that the plaintiff's services were terminated from 7-9-1987 by the defendant is correct and does not require any interference. The plaintiff's claim for damages, mental pain and suffering, and loss of face has been rightly rejected by the trial Court as the plaintiff has failed to prove the allegations made in that regard. 6. The cross-examination under Order XLI, Rule 22 is filed by the plaintiff-respondent. for the amount which has not been decreed by the trial Court. On appreciation of the material on record, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Court below. The appreciation of the evidence by the trial Court is in accordance with law and does not call for any interference by this Court. 7. For the reasons stated above, the appeal filed by the defendant-appellant is dismissed. The cross-objection filed by the plaintiff-respondent is also dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******