1. The first question argued in this revision petition is whether the petitioner, who is a compositor, is an artificer, workman or labourer within the meaning of Act XIII of 185. A compositor is defined in the Century Dictionary as one who sets up type. Mr. Shenai on petitioner's behalf contends that, because he has to use his brains to some extent in order to set type, he does not some within the some of the Act. Mr. Shenai has relied on the judgment of Alying, J., in Natuthodi Kunhi v. Chamu Nair 43 Ind. Cas. 787 , but that is not in point. We think that a compositor, in ordinary parlance, would be regarded as ac artificer, if not as a workman. This point, therefore, fails.
2. The remaining argument is that Exhibit A, the agreement between the petitioner and his master, simply creates a relation of debtor and creditor, not as a master with a workman who has received an advance. Reliance is placed on the construction put by the Courts on what are alleged to be similar agreements in Abdul Rasul Ismailji, In re 11 Ind. Cas. 586 and High Court Proceedings, 9th January 1880 1 Weir 681 Neither of these cases is, in our opinion, analogous to the present. In the first the last sentence of the agreement provided, quite generally, for re-payment of the advance made within a period which was specified although, no doubt, from the workman's wages. In the second, similarly, the deposit or loan was to be refunded at the close of the period of the contract. In neither was there anything resembling the provision in Exhibit A by which the advance to the workman is to be re paid by periodical deductions from the amount of his wages and should in any case be worked out by him.
3. The revision petition fails and is dismissed.