Sivasubramania Pillai and Others vs The Panruti Industrial Co. Ltd.

Govinda Menon, J.—Except under very exceptional and special circumstances an employee is not entitled to sue an employer for account.

See -- Ramachandra Madhavadoss Co. Vs. Moovakat Moidunkutti Birankutti and Brothers, . The general law is, it is only an employer that can

call upon his agent for an account. The vice versa is not always correct. See -- Mahadevi alias Kunhi Thampuratti styled Manaviyathen, the

present Valiya Thampuratti of Ambati Kovilakam Vs. P.P. Sankara Menon, . It is impossible to say that the exception applies to the present ease.

Therefore the plaintiff''s suit for an account is not maintainable.

But it is seen from para 10 of his plaint, that the plaintiff''s prayer is for a sum of Rs. 541-3-0, being the amount alleged to be due to him for

commission from the defendant for selling the defendant''s goods. The trial Court examined the evidence and came to the conclusion that that

amount was duo to the plaintiff.

As regard? Sub-clause (2) and (3) of para 10, it is difficult to say that they relate to specific items. In para 11(a)(I) the plaintiff asked for his

remuneration or commission from 10-4-1947 till the end of July 1947 which he has estimated at Rs. 541-3-0. Though the other portions of the

plaint are drafted as if the suit is one for general accounting, it is possible to dissociate the claim of the plaintiff for the commission from 10-4-1947

till the end of July 1947 from the other reliefs.

There is nothing in law which prevents an employee or agent from suing his employer or principal for specific sums of money due to him as

commission for specific work done by him. Viewed in that light the plaint can he restricted to a claim for Rs. 541-3-0 as regards commission. The

fact that along with that, untenable and unsustainable claims have been tacked on would not deprive the plaintiff if lie is really entitled to the sum of

Rs. 541-3-0.

The trial Court has found that the plaintiff is entitled to that sum; but the lower appellate Court has not gone into the merits. Such being the case, I

call upon the lower appellate Court to submit a finding on the evidence on record as to what exactly is the amount due to the plaintiff towards the

commission from 10-4-1947 till the end of July 1947. Plaintiff''s claims as regards the other reliefs are disallowed. The findings will be submitted in

six weeks from the receipt of records and seven days for objections.

(Findings) .. .. ... .. ...

The finding which is one of fact is accepted. The decision of the lower Courts is modified by passing a decree in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.

541-3-0 with interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum from this date. There will be no costs in this second appeal. No leave.