EMPEROR Vs. RAMKRISHNA HARIBHAOO VADKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main purpose of the contract is that the artificer shall work for ten years for his employer, One of its stated objects, and a most important one, is to prevent the artificer leaving his employer s service during the period of ten years. I cannot believe that such contracts as this were ever intended to come under Act XIII of 1859. To me the words taken with the declared object of the Act definitely suggest that they were not.

(2.) Therefore I think the rule should be made absolute. Shah, J.

(3.) The question arising in this application is whether the contract between the parties falls within the purview of Act XIII of 1859. The applicant entered into a contract with his employer on the 17th January, 1917, whereby he agreed to serve for a period of ten years on a salary of Rs. 40 per mensem as an artisan and not to go elsewhere leaving his service. The employer purported to advance Rs. 286 ; but it is found that Rs. 186 represented the previous advances and that Rs. 100 only were advanced in cash at the date of the contract. The advance is described as having been made in cash for the work to be done under the contract. The applicant agreed to repay this sum of Rs. 286 by deducting Rs. 5 out of his salary every month. He agreed to pay off the advance in ten years. The contract contemplates further advances, and also provides that if any part of the sum advanced or to be advanced remains unpaid at the expiry of the ten years he will serve on the same terms till the whole amount is paid off.