Vedagiri Sastriar vs Jagathguru Sankarachariar Swamigal on 21 September, 1934
So far as this High Court is concerned Baradwaja Mudaliar v. Arunachala Gurukkal (1917) I.L.R. 41 Mad. 528 is the only direct decision upon: the point. A reference to Article 7, in a claim "for the wages of a household servant, artisan or labourer not provided for by this schedule" one year's period of limitation is given starting from the time when the wages accrued due. This article must be contrasted with Article 102, which deals with a ckim "for wages not otherwise expressly provided for by this schedule." It is clear that Article 7, and Article 102 deal with two different classes of wage-earners. The former obviously deals with a lower class of wage-earner to that dealt with by Article 102 in respect of which a three years' period of limitation is given. In spite of the appellant's contention that emoluments such as these cannot correctly be described as "wages", in our opinion, the real test is whether those emoluments are payable by an employer to his servant, in other words, whether the relationship of employer and servant exists. If it does, then we think that what is payable can be described as wages.