JUDGMENT : - This is a plaintiffs application in revision against the order of the Small Cause Court, Kanpur, dismissing the plaintiffs suit on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation.

2. The facts briefly are that the plaintiff was an employee of the Kanpur Bus Service Ltd. He was suspended by the management on 3-9-1947 on account of some theft which took place in the premises of the defendant. He was subsequently prosecuted but on 16-7-1948 he was acquitted. On 27-8-1948 after his acquittal he was reinstated by the management. Thereafter the plaintiff brought the present suit for recovery of his arrears during the period of suspension, namely from 3-2-1948 to 26-8-1948. The case set up by the plaintiff was that subsequent to his acquittal he made several applications to the defendant asking for the payment of his wages for the period of suspension but no redress was given to him. Thereafter he took the matter to the Labour Commissioner on 17-8-1848 under S.15, Payment of Wages Act. Ultimately on 6-12-1948 the Labour Commissioner refused to adjudicate upon the matter and directed the plaintiff to file a suit in a Court of Law. On these facts the present suit was brought and the plaintiff claimed that the cause of action arose to him on 16th July when he was acquitted by the criminal Court and the period from 17-8-1948 to 6-12-1948 during which the matter was prosecuted before the Labour Commissioner should be excluded under S.14, Limitation Act. The present suit was filed on 26-8-1949.

3. The Small Causes Judge held that the suit was barred by limitation and dismissed it. The Judge, Small Causes further remarked that it has been admitted by the counsel for the parties that the period of limitation for the present claims is one year as provided in Art.7, Limitation Act. In the present petition, however, it has been contended that the present suit is not governed by Art.7, Limitation Act. According to the applicant the Article which is applicable to the present case is Art.102. Article 7 provides for a suit for the wages of a house-hold servant, artisan or labourer not provided for by the schedule in Art.4. The starting point of the Limitation is when the wages accrue due. Article 102 provides for the wages not otherwise expressly provided for by the schedule. The contention of the applicant is that he was employed as a bus driver. He can neither be regarded as a house-hold servant nor an artisan or labourer and consequently Art.7 does not apply to his case. It is contended that an artisan is one who is engaged in some productive work. A bus driver who has only to operate upon a bus and is to observe rules of traffic cannot be regarded as one engaged in productive activities. In Oxford Dictionary the word artisan has been defined to mean a mechanic also. A driver has not only to operate upon a bus but in the event of breakdown, he has to repair the bus and has to be a mechanic also. In the case - Sewa Ram v. Lachmi Narayan, AIR 1927 Rang 279 (A), it was held that a motor car driver must possess some skill in manipulating the different parts of the mechanism of the car and he should therefore be included in the category of artisan. This case was tried to be distinguished by the learned counsel for the applicant upon the ground that it was held in that case that the driver should be treated as a domestic servant. In the case of a driver employed by a private individual, it may be said that he is as much a domestic servant as any other servant in the house. But in the present case the applicant was employed by a limited concern and therefore he cannot be regarded as a domestic servant. It is true that in the Rangoon case the decision was based both on the ground that the driver was included in the word artisan as well as in the words domestic servant. But it cannot be said that it was not decided in that case that the case of a driver is covered by Art.7, Limitation Act. This case has been followed by the Calcutta High Cour

Click Here to Read the rest of this document