K. C. DAS GUPTA, J.

( 1 ) THESE two Rules arise out of a suit brought by a person for recovery of arrears of salary for his service as the driver of a motor car. The plaintiff's claim was at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month. The defendant pleaded that the salary was at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month, that nothing was due and that the claim was barred by limitation. The learned Munsif rejected the plea of payment and decreed the suit at the rate of RSection 60/ -. He d (sic) not, it appears, consider the plea of limitation.

( 2 ) THE only question raised in the Rule tained by the plaintiff (Civil Revn. No. 3327 1953) is that the Munsif was wrong in concluc (sic) that the salary was at the rate of Rs. 60/-month and not at the rate of Rs. 75/- per mo (sic) That however is a question of fact and even the Munsif has come to a wrong conclusion of acts, that would not justify our interfering with this order under Section 115, Civil F. C. This Rule must therefore be discharged.

( 3 ) THE Rule obtained by the defendant (Civil Revn. No. 2277 of 1953) raises an important question of limitation. There are at present two Articles in the First Schedule to- the Limitation Act dealing with suits for wages. Another Article,-- Article 4--, which provided a period of 6 months for some of such suits was repealed by Act 20 of 1937. The two Articles which are now on the Statute Book on this question are Articles 7 and 102. Article 7 provides one year's limitation for suits for wages of household servants, artisans, labourers, the time running from the date when the wages accrue due. Article 102 provides three years' limitation for suits "for wages not otherwise expressly provided for by this Schedule. " Here also, the time is to run from the date when the wages accrue due. The question, therefore, is whether Article 7 or Article 102 is applicable to the present suit. Article 7 will be applicable if the driver of a motor car falls within the description of a household servant, artisan or labourer. It. is not, and it cannot be, seriously contended that a motor driver is either a household servant or a labourer. The question remains whether he is an artisan. In two cases, one of which is a decision of this Court, the view was taken that a motor driver is an artisan within the meaning of Art; 7 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act. The earlier of these decisions was in the case of -- 'r. Sewaram v. Lachminarayan', AIR 1927 Rang 279 (A ). Jn that case Maung Ba J. said:"according to Webster's Dictionary an artisan is one trained to mechanical dexterity in some mechanical art or trade. A motor car driver is required at least, to know how to start the ear, how to steer it and how to stop it. For such purposes he must possess some skill in manipulating the different parts of the mechanism. I think, he should be included in the category of an artisan. I also cannot see any reason why he should be treated differently from a household servant or a labourer and given the benefit of a longer period under Article 102. . . . "in the case of -- "khagendra Nath v. Kanti Bhushan', AIR 1936 Cal 808 (B) Mitter J. had to consider whether Article 7 was applicable to a suit brought by a person for wages as a bus driver. His Lordship concluded that a bus driver was an artisan within the meaning of Article 7 and so that Article was applicable. His Lordship observed:"i do not agree in the contention that a bus driver is a household servant. In my judgment, a bus or motor car driver is an artisan. He must know something of the mechanism of a (sic) car, must know how to start it, to stop it and to (sic) a steer it. He is supposed to attend to the car (sic) emergent cases when the mechanism goes a somewhat out of order during a journey. In this VIEW OF THE MATTER I hold that he is an artisan Within the meaning of Article 7. . . "with great respect to the learned Judges I am unable to agree that a motor car driver is an artisan within the meaning of Article 7 of the Sche

Click Here to Read the rest of this document