Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Balu Salaji - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Reference No. 92 of 1908
Judge
Reported in(1908)10BOMLR1126
AppellantEmperor
RespondentBalu Salaji
Excerpt:
workman's breach of contract act (xiii of 1859), sections 1, 2-summary trial.;an offence under the workmen's breach of contract act, 1859, can not be punished summarily.;emperor v. dhondu krishna (1904) 6 bom. l.r. 255, followed. - - it is in accordance with the rule of construction applicable to an act such as act xiii of 1859. that rule is well explained by lord herschell in darby corporation v......section of the rivers pollution act, 1876, under which a county court judge had power to order any person to abstain from polluting a river and the said person might be required to perform that duty in the manner specified in the order. if the order were disobeyed, the county court judge had jurisdiction to impose a penalty not exceeding 50 a day as he should think reasonable. as lord hersohell says in his judgment, the proceeding in which a county court judge orders any person to abstain from polluting the river and requires him to perform that duty in a specified manner is not a penal proceeding, because ' all it can end in is an order under such terms and conditions as the county court judge thinks reasonable to prevent or abate a nuisance.' then his lordship goes on: ' the.....
Judgment:

1. The law enunciated in Emperor v. Dhondu (1904) 6 Bom. L.R. 255 ought, we think, to be followed. It is in accordance with the rule of construction applicable to an Act such as Act XIII of 1859. That rule is well explained by Lord Herschell in Darby Corporation v. Derbyshire County Council [1897] A.C. 550. The action there was a proceeding in a County Court under the 10th section of the Rivers Pollution Act, 1876, under which a County Court Judge had power to order any person to abstain from polluting a river and the said person might be required to perform that duty in the manner specified in the order. If the order were disobeyed, the County Court Judge had jurisdiction to impose a penalty not exceeding 50 a day as he should think reasonable. As Lord Hersohell says in his judgment, the proceeding in which a County Court Judge orders any person to abstain from polluting the river and requires him to perform that duty in a specified manner is not a penal proceeding, because ' all it can end in is an order under such terms and conditions as the County Court Judge thinks reasonable to prevent or abate a nuisance.' Then his Lordship goes on: ' The legislature has provided that if that order is disobeyed then the County Court Judge may impose a penalty.... That is a separate and independent proceeding. It is true it is taken, as it is said, in the action or the proceeding, but it is really a separate proceeding in which the penalty for disobedience is imposed.'

2. The Court, therefore, quashes the orders in this case. The lower Court will be at liberty to take fresh proceedings accord' ing to law.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //