SATYA KINKAR CHATTERJEE Vs. BABULAL RAJWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant is the appellant. The claim of the plaintiff was that he worked as a driver of the defendant from 1st September 1953 to the 18th September, 1956, on a monthly salary of Rs. 100/- per month. But during all that period what he got was only Rs. 480/-; hence the suit for recovery of balance which according to him amounted to Rupees 1980/-. The defence pleaded was that the plaintiff never worked under the defendant either as his driver or in any other capacity and, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to the decree prayed for. Therefore, the main question that arose for consideration in the two Courts below was whether the plaintiff was a driver of the defendant as alleged by him. On this point, the Courts below have taken opposite views. The trial Court held that the Plain-tiff had failed to prove the relationship of master and servant between him and the defendant; accordingly, dismissed the suit. In appeal, that finding has been reversed. The lower appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff did work as a driver of the defendant during the aforesaid period. Ac-cordingly it has decreed the suit. Hence, this appeal by the defendant.

(2.) In my opinion, so far as the rela tionship of master and servant is concerned, that is now concluded by findings of fact. Mr. Mazumdar, however, appearing for the appellant, has raised three other points in support of this appeal; (1) that the Court below should have held that the suit as framed is barred under Article 7 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act; (2) that the amount decreed by the Court below should have been less by Rs. 50/- and (3) that, in any view of the matter, the court below is wrong in allow ing the entire cost to the plaintiff; on the con trary, it should have allowed only proper. tionate cost.

(3.) Now, so far as the first poin: is concerned, that depends on the interpretation of Article 7 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act. That Article reads-- "For the wages of a household servant, artisan or a labourer. As against that, there is another Article, viz. Article 102 which provides limitation, for "wages not otherwise expressly provided for by this Schedule.' The question, herefore that arises in this connection is whether a drriver in the present case can be held to be as either a household servant, or an artisan; for, in any case, he is not a labourer. In my opinion, the question whether the position of a particular individual is that of a household servant or an artisan depends much on the type of the work that he undertakes or does in the family of the employer. In the present case, the defence pleaded by the defendant was that the plaintiff never worked as his driver. Therefore, on the records of til present case, there is no material sufficient to hold whether the plaintiff can be included within, the definition of the words "household servant or arisan' as given in Article 7. Mr. Mazumday has, in support of his contention that the driver in this case is in the portion of a household servant and artisan, drawn my attention to the authority in Noor Ali v. Kanpur Omnibus Service Ltd., AIR 1955 All 707. As against that, Mr. Balbhadra Prasad Singli appearing for the respondent in support of his contention that the Court below has rightly held that on the facts of the Present case the Article which applies is Article 102, has placed reliance on the decision in Maniklal Upadhya v. Ramesh Chandra, AIR 1955 Cal 290. I havs already stated that on the records of this case there is no material sufficient to find the nature of he work which the plaintiff used to do an the house of his employer Therefore, broadly speaking he can be taken nothing but to be a driver alone. That being so, it is difficult to hold that he comes, on the facts of the present case either within, the category of household servant or artisan. House hold servant is obviously one who works witli-in the house or does anything in connection Therewith. An artisan is one who as explained in the Webster Dictionary is "trained to manual dexterity his some mechanic art or trade". In the latter sense, a driver may or may not be an artisan as held in the aforesaid decision In AIR 1955 Cal 290. If, in fact, a drive is also a mechanic, he may be classified as an artisan; but in the present case there is no material on the record, as stated above, that the present plaintiff is a mechanic as well. For these reasons, I think, the Court below has rightly held that on the facts of the present case the Article which is applicable is Article 102 and not Article 7.