Law:

Section:

LORD COHEN.‑The appellant entered the service of the respondents in 1937 at a salary of Rs. 150 per month plus a "dearness allowance" which their Lordships understand to mean a cost of living allowance. It was also the practice of the respondents to give their employee an annul Xmas bonus.   The business of the respondents was divided into depart ments, the appellant being employed in a department which is called sometimes the Sundries Department, sometimes the Import Department and sometimes the General Import and Sundries Department. According to the appellant he saw opportunities of developing a particular kind of business described as indent business and approached the 1st respondent towards the end of 1939 with the suggestion that he (the appellant) should receive an addition to his remuneration. He alleges that an agreement was reached that he should receive in addition to his fixed salary and dearness allowance an eighth share of the net profits of his department. He contends that this agreement remained in force until he left the service of the respondents on the 31st December, 1944, subject only to two variations : (a) that in 1940‑41 there was imposed for a short time a 10 per cent. cut in. fixed salary and (b) that it was agreed early in 1944 that his fixed salary including dearness allowance should thenceforth be Rs. 500 per month.   The respondents admit the allegations as to the fixed salary but deny that the appellant had any legal claim to anything over and above it.   The evidence establishes beyond dispute that the appellant received or was credited with certain sums in the books of the respondents at the end of each of the financial years ending on the 31st March, 1941‑42 and 1943, respectively, the amounts involved being in 1941 Rs. 5,000, in 1942 Rs. 5,000 and in 1943 Rs. 4,000. These sums were in addition to his fixed salary, any Xmas bonuses and a special bonus given to all employees to celebrate the silver jubilee of the 2nd respondent, but the respondents allege that they were ex gratia payments as a reward for hard work and that the appellant could not have sued to recover them had they not been paid.…