B. P. BYRAMJI AND COMPANY Vs. KHEMKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MACNAIR , Offg. J.C. 1. The Small Cause Court-Judge has held that the pay of Mr. Prichard which falls due on the 1st of every month is in the nature of a debt due on-the 1st of each month and that therefore a prohibitory order can issue against his employer in view of Rules 46 and 48 Order 21, Soh. 1, Civil P.C. The order, was passed on an application presented a year previously asking in' vague terms for the attachment of the pay of Mr. Prichard. The order is in my opinion contrary to the provisions of law. Order 21, Rule 48, has no application as Mr. Prichard is in private service. The pay which would fall due on the 1st of each month was not on the date ef the order a debt: Haridas Aoharjya v. Baroda Kishore [1900] 27 Cal. 33. It is argued for the non-applicant that an order might have been passed with regard to the pay for 23 days of January on the ground that this amount had become due on the date of the order. This proposition was not apparently put forward in the Small cause Court the order of the Judge states that the pay would become due on the 1st of the month. It is well established that an employee engaged by the month is not entitled to wages for the current month if he wrongfully leaves employment during the month: Dhumee Behara v. C.H.C. Sevenoaks [1886] 13 Cal. 80. The right to receive pay for the 23 days of January then was contingent on the due performance of service for the entire month-The wages for that period were not on 23rd January a debt which could be attached. I therefore set aside the prohibitory order. Costs in this Court will be borne by the non-applicant Khemkaran. Counsel's fee Rs. 25.