Skip to content


The Aryodaya Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. Vs. Siva Virchand - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Application No. 69 of 1910
Judge
Reported in(1911)13BOMLR19
AppellantThe Aryodaya Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd.
RespondentSiva Virchand
Excerpt:
.....off service-absence of notice-forfeiture of wages.;the plaintiff, a jobber in the defendant company's service, served it from the 1st october to the 2nd november 1908, when he left the service without any notice. under the rules of the company, it was incumbent upon him to give the company i5 day's notice before he left the service failing which he would not be entitled to the wages due. the plaintiff then sued the company to recover his wages for the period during which he served. the lower court holding that the above rule was a for feiture clause, which the court should not enforce, decreed the plaintiff's claim :- ;rejecting the plaintiff's claim, that the above rule contained nothing illegal and nothing contrary to public policy ; but it was a part of the contract, which the..........authority for this opinion is afforded by the case of walsh v. walley (1874) 9 q b. 3675. we, therefore, set aside the decree of the subordinate judge and direct that the suit be dismissed. we, however, make no order as to costs.
Judgment:

Batchelor, J.

1. This is an application under s. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. There is no appearance for the opponent. The petitioner was the defendant, a Mill Company of Ahmedabad, and the opponent-plaintiff was employed in the Mill as a jobber or Muccadum. He brought this suit to recover wages from the 1st October to the 2nd November 1908. His case both in the plaint and in a notice threatening litigation, before the plaint, was that he had been unjustifiably dismissed from the defendant's service. In the course of his evidence in the suit, however, he was driven to admit that he was not dismissed but left the service without notice, and that is found to be the fact.

2. Under the Rules of the Company it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to give the Company 15 days' notice before he left their service. That rule has admittedly been infringed by the plaintiff in this case.

3. The learned Subordinate Judge has, however, given the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 40 against the defendant, mainly on the ground that, in his opinion, the Company's rule providing that in the absence of the 15 days' notice, wages accrued due should not be payable to the servants, is a forfeiture clause which the Court should not enforce. '

4. It appears to us, however, that, as was said by Maclean C.L in Empress of India Cotton Mills Co. v. Naffer Chuder Roy (1898) 2 C.W.N. 687 'such a terra as this contains nothing illegal and nothing contrary to public policy.' That term was part of the contract, which the plaintiff with his eyes open made with the defendant, and we are aware of no reason why he should not be held to be bound by his contract. The case resembles in all essentials that which we have quoted above, and following the decision there, we are of opinion that the plaintiff's suit ought to have been dismissed. Further authority for this opinion is afforded by the case of Walsh v. Walley (1874) 9 Q B. 367

5. We, therefore, set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge and direct that the suit be dismissed. We, however, make no order as to costs.


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