Kanhaiya Lal, J.
1. The plaintiff was employed as a weighman in the shop of the defendant on a fixed monthly remuneration of Rs. 13 per mensem. He claimed his wages from the 12th February 1921 to the 2nd February 1924 which the Court below has allowed for a period of three years prior to the suit.
2. The question for determination is whether Article 7 or Article 102 is applicable to the suit. Art, 7 applies to suits for the wages of a household servant, artisan or labourer and provides a limitation of one year from the date when the wages accrue due. Article 102 applies to a suit for wages not otherwise provided for and allows a period of three years from the date when the wages accrue due. As stated by Stroud (Judicial Dictionary, 2nd Edition, page 2205), wages include payment for any services; yet in general the word salary is used for payment of servants of a higher class and wages is confined to the earnings of labourers and artisans: Gordon v. Jennings  51 L.J.Q.B. 417. A labourer is defined as a man who digs and does other work of this kind with his hands But a carpenter is not called a labourer because though he works which his hand his work requires skill and training Morgan v. London General Omnibus Co.  53 L.J.Q.B. 352. A labourer, according to Wharton, is a servant in husbandry or manufacture not living intra maenia who labours in a toilsome occupation and does work that requires little skill as distinguished from an artisan (Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Volume II, page 1819). A weighman employed to work at a shop is not a household servant nor is he an artisan. He cannot be treated as a mere labourer employed to do task work, that is to hold the scales and weigh goods in a shop for a monthly salary. He can be asked to do other work of the shop when free. He has to count and add up, and may have also perhaps to calculate the price on the total quantity weighed and his work, therefore, cannot be treated as purely manual labour so as to make Art 7 of the Act applicable. He may be regarded in fact a shopkeeper's assistant, and Article 102 has been rightly applied to the case. The arrears have been long due and interest thereon has been properly allowed. The application, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs including fees in this Court on the higher scale.