High CourtsDivision Bench(1912) 09 BOM CK 0002

Emperor vs Naga Tima

Bombay High Court · Decided on 16 September 1912 · Citation: (1912) 14 BOMLR 956 : 17 Ind. Cas. 789

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rao, J · Batchelor, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Reference No. 80 of 1912

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 142 words
1.

In our opinion Act XIII of 1859 (Workmen''s Breach of Contract Act) is a Statute which calls for strict interpretation, and the agreement which has been closely analysed by the learned Sessions Judge appears to us to fall outside that Statute. The reasons for that view have been given by the Sessions Judge, and we need not recapitulate them. It will be enough for us to say that the respondent before us was not an employer or master within the meaning of the Statute, but was, in our opinion, a mere broker or middle man for the purpose of supplying labour to the .employer or master and the terms of the agreement seem to us, in many respects, to lie wholly outside the scope of the Act.

2.

We must therefore set aside the order passed by the First Class Magistrate.