A PARAYYA Vs. VENKATIGADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks for revision of an order of the Court of Sessions confirming an order of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Anantapur dismissing the petitioner's complaint for a breach of contract by the 1 accused under Section 2(1) of the Workmen's Breach of Contract Act.

(2.) The facts are that the 1 accused having taken a loan of Rs. 100 from the petitioner on 10 June, 1924 entered into a contract with the petitioner that he and his minor son would do service under the petitioner for one year on a wage of Rs. 30 per annum plus housing and clothing, and that for the balance of Rs. 70 if unpaid at the end of the year, they would continue to serve. The 1 accused did serve up to 9 May, 1925 and then left. The petitioner complained to the Sub-Magistrate who, after hearing the parties, passed an order on 18th June, 1925 that the 1 accused should serve for a further period of two years, four months and 23 days. 1 accused served for a few days and again left. The petitioner again complained to the Sub-Magistrate on 5 January, 1926. The Sub-Magistrate Held, that the order of 18 June, 1925 was ultra vires and unenforceable and that the delay of 6 months in complaining had not been properly explained and he dismissed the complaint. The Sessions Judge dismissed a revision petition and the petitioner comes up here.

(3.) There can be no doubt that the order of 18 June, 1925, was beyond the jurisdiction of the Sub-Magistrate. Under Section 2(1) of the Act the Sub-Magistrate cannot order the accused to work for more than one year. Under the original contract, if the balance was not repaid at the end of the year, the 1 accused had an option of paying up the Rs. 70 or continuing the service. Under it then the 1 accused was not bound to serve for more than one year. He did serve for 11 months and, being in default in serving the remaining month, it was open to the Magistrate on 18 June, 1925 to have directed him to serve for one year more. But the order was obviously contrary to the law and the 1 accused cannot therefore be punished for not complying with it. Nor is it an order which will come within the ambit of Section 2(2) as an order made under Section 2(1). The petitioner's only remedy therefore was to get a fresh order passed in place of the illegal order of 18 June, 1925. He does not ask for that, nor will this Court be justified in passing an order of such, a nature nearly two years after the breach.