BHOGIRAVATHU SOMANNA Vs. NANDIVADA CHELAPATHI RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first question argued in this revision petition is whether the petitioner, who is a compositor, is an artificer, workman or labourer within the meaning of Act XIII of 1859. A compositor is defined in the Century Dictionary as one who sets up type. Mr. Shenai on petitioner s behalf contends that because he has to use his brains to some extent in order to set type, he does not come within the scope of the Act. Mr. Shenai has relied on the judgment of Ayling, J. in Kunhi Moidin v. Chamu Nair (1917) I.L.R. 41 Mad. 182 but that is not in point. We think that a compositor in ordinary parlance would be regarded as an artificer, if not as a workman. This point therefore fails.

(2.) The remaining argument is that Ex. A, the agreement between the petitioner and his master, simply creates a relation of debtor and creditor, not of a master with a workman who has received an advance. Reliance is placed on the construction put by the Courts on what are alleged to be similar agreements in In re Abdul Rasul (1911) I.L.R. 13 Bom. L.R. 548 and I Weir 681. Neither of these cases, is, in our opinion, analogous to the present. In the first, the last sentence of the agreement provided, quite generally for repayment of the advance made within a period which was specified although , no doubt, from the workman s wages. In the second, similarly, the deposit or loan was to be refunded at the close of the period of the contract. In neither was there anything resembling the provision in Ex. A. by which the advance to the workman is to be repaid by periodical deductions from the amount of his wages and should in any case be worked out by him.

(3.) The revision petition fails and is dismissed.