KANDASAMI MUDALI Vs. GURUSWAMI PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These cases come before us on applications for revision of the order of the District Magistrate of Chittoor directing further enquiry into a complaint under the Workmen's Breach of Contract Act, XIII of 1859 as amended by Act XII of 1920. The whole proceedings having been brought before us in order that their propriety may be considered, it will serve no useful purpose to consider whether the District Magistrate had the power to make such an order in proceedings under the Act.

(2.) We therefore turn at once to the merits of the question raised. That question is whether the contract, on which the respondent, the employer, relies being a contract made with the two petitioners, the artificers, jointly can be the subject of proceedings under the Act at all. The Sub-Magistrate, who originally dealt with the case, held with reference to Bhan Abaji v. Rama 2 Bom. LR 545 that the Act deals only with cases of advances to individuals and not with cases of advances to more persons than one jointly. We think that this statement of the purview of the Act is too wide and cannot be sound, if regard is had to the wording employed. Section 1 of the Act, XIII of 1859 provides to quote the material portion, that "when any artificer shall have received from any employer or from any person acting on behalf of such employer an advance of money, if such artificer shall wilfully and without lawful or reasonable excuse neglect or refuse to perform such work according to the terms of his contract" certain specified consequences shall follow. There is nothing explicit in this section to exclude joint contracts. No doubt the singular is used. But the first question is whether there is before the court any artificer who has received an advance.

(3.) It is quite possible that even where a joint contract is in question, proof may be forthcoming that of the contracting persons both or either have actually or constructively received all or part of the advance, for which it provides. We cannot see any reason in Section 92 of the Evidence Act why this should not be proved. since the fact that one of two joint contracting parties actually receives the consideration does not necessarily involve that he does not receive it as regards part or whole as the agent of the other and a finding to that effect will not necessarily involve any variation of the terms of the contract. That joint contracts, which are not expressly excluded by the wording of Section 1, may be contemplated in it results further from Section 5 of the Amending Act XII of 1920, which provides that the word "contract" in the original Act shall extend to all contracts within the meaning of the Indian Contract Act. It seems to us that what the lower court has to do in dealing with cases under the Act is to see whether as a matter of evidence and as a matter of fact, the artificer or any of the artificers before it has received an advance of money.