EMPEROR Vs. RAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for revision of an order of the Sessions Judge of Jhansi, declining to interfere with an order by a first class Magistrate of the same district passed under Section 2 of the Workmen s Breach of Contract Act (No. XIII of 1859). As the application raises one question of law on which it is supported by the authority of the Punjab Chief Court, I think it advisable to state the essential facts of the case and my reasons for rejecting the application. The applicants are eight workmen who entered into an agreement by which they incurred certain joint and several liabilities towards a contractor named Murli Dhar. The applicants were to furnish Murli Dhar with stone road-metal at certain specified rates. They were to receive advances from the said contractor and they were to continue working for him and for no one else, so long as any sum remained due to Murli Dhar in respect of the said advances. There was a special provision to the effect that the contract might at any moment be terminated on the workmen s repaying to Murli Dhar double the amount of the balance due in respect of advances received. In the month of November, 1917, the workmen left Murli Dhar s service and entered that of certain rival contractors. At that moment a very considerable sum was due to Murli Dhar on account of the advances which he had made. The sum to his credit in the hands of the applicants is found to have exceeded, at the moment when they left his service, Rs. 1,100.

(2.) Murli Dhar did not immediately apply for the remedy which he now claims as open to him under Act No. XIII of 1859, nor did he immediately institute a civil suit for the relief which he might have claimed under the penalty clause, that is to say, to recover double the amount of the pending balance of the advances from the defaulting workmen. He entered into negotiations with the rival contractors into whose service the applicants had passed, and also with the applicants themselves. It is proved that negotiations took place in the course of which Murli Dhar male what seems to me on the materials available a fair, and even generous, offer. He said that would be satisfied with the re-payment of the pending balance of Rs. 1,100 and odd, without any penalty, provided that two recruits for military service were provided in his name. Presumably he desired to render a public service, and to obtain due credit for having done so, as a condition precedent to his accepting the settlement of the dispute between himself and the defaulting workmen on terms apparently most favourable to the latter. In consequence of this offer made by Murli Dhar, which I presume was ostensibly accepted by the workmen and by the rival contractors, Murli Dhar was repaid a sum of about Rs. 1,050. The finding is that a cash balance of Rs. 69 on account of the advances made to the applicants remained due from them, and this finding I am bound to accept. It appears also that Murli Dhar s stipulation as to the furnishing of two recruits for the public service was never complied with. When matters had reached this stage Murli Dhar finally demanded that the workmen should return to his service and work off the balance of Rs. 69 due from them according to the terms of the contract, that is, by the supply of road-metal at certain rates. The latter refused to do this, and thereupon proceedings were taken resulting in the present application. An order has been passed by the Magistrate which complies in substance with the provisions of Sections 2 and 3 of Act No. XIII of 1859. I should perhaps note that, in the course of these proceedings the applicants admittedly tendered the balance of Rs. 69 due to Murli Dhar, but the latter insisted upon the option given him by Section 2 of the Act to claim, not an order for the repayment of the money advanced, but one for the performance of the work according to the terms of the contract.

(3.) With reference to this point, one of the pleas taken before me is that the order for performance of the work should not have been passed in view of the tender made by the applicants of the balance due. It seems sufficient to say that, if the provisions of Act No. XIII of 1859 are applicable at all to the circumstances of the case, the complainant, that is to say Murli Dhar, had an option to refuse to accept the mere repayment of the balance due as adequate compensation. Moreover, it can scarcely be contended that the mere repayment of this small balance of the advances could on the face of it be regarded as affording adequate compensation to Murli Dhar for the conduct of the workmen in abandoning his service. In the same connection the point is taken that the contract of service was too vague and indefinite to be specifically enforced. I can only say that, after due consideration of the terms of the contract, I am not of this opinion. The order is that the applicants shall supply stone road-metal at certain specified rates, until the value of the material supplied at the said rates comes to Rs. 69. This is a clear and easily enforceable order, and it is in accordance with the terms of the original contract between the parties.