ARJOON VISHNU Vs. HORMUSJEE SHAPURJEE SEERVAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This was a suit tiled in the Small Causes Court by the plaintiff against the proprietor of Wimbridge & Co. claiming wages which were due to him. The admitted facts are that the plaintiff received a daily wage, the amount he had earned during the month being calculated according to the days on which he worked. Sundays, therefore, and the days on which the plaintiff was absent, were not paid for, The plaintiff's evidence as shown by the record is as follows :-" We are not paid for Sunday . Our wages are one rupee per day. Wages are calculated at that rate, though paid in lump. I am also not paid for days absent. We were asking for more pay. Defendant declined and I left. Some others also left." Then the correspondence was put in which throws no light on the present question, except that in it the plaintiff claimed that he was a daily labourer, and at the end of the defendant's letter of the 3 of July appear the following words : " The story of 1 daily workmen shows more of the legal touch than a statement of the fact. There was no suggestion then, when in the correspondence the plaintiff claimed that he was a daily labourer, that he was a monthly servant.

(2.) Then the defendant was called and said: "I say plaintiff is a monthly servant. Plaintiff is not paid for Sundays and for absent days. The pay is paid once a month on that calculation."

(3.) The record shows that the defendant closed his case, and the finding was " I find that the plaintiff is not a monthly servant and is entitled to his earned wages for twenty-six days. Decree for plaintiff for Rs. 26 and costs."