Master And Servant - Law Dictionary Search Results
Home Dictionary Name: master and servantMaster and servant
Master and servant, a relation whereby a person calls in the assistance of others, where his own skill and labour are not sufficient to carry out his own business or purpose. See LABOURERS.Servants are of several descriptions:- 1st Servants in husbandry. These are very generally hired by the year, as from Michaelmas to Michaelmas, and this is an entire hiring for a year; and, unless otherwise stipulated, no wages are payable until the end of the year. Consult Burn's Justice, tit. 'Servants.'2nd Servants in particular trades. These (who are now more frequently termed 'workmen,' their masters being termed 'employers') are subject to the control of the magistrates under the (English) Employers and Workmen Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 90), and by the Truck Acts (see that title) their wages must be paid in coin.3rd Apprentices. These are placed with the master to learn his trade, with a view hereafter of following it themselves. See APPRENTICE.4th Menial or domestic servants. If no terms be ...
Master, servant and independent contractor
Master, servant and independent contractor, A master is one who not only prescribes to the workman the end of his work, but directs or at any moment may direct the means also, or, as it has been put, 'retains the power of controlling the work', a servant is a person to the command of his master as to the manner in which he shall do his work............An independent contractor is one who undertakes to produce a given result but so that in the actual execution of the work he is not under the order or control of the person for whom he does it, any may use his own discretion in things not specified beforehand............' (Pollock on Torts), Shivanandan Sharma v. Punjab National Bank Ltd., AIR 1955 SC 404 (409)....
Statutum sessionum
Statutum sessionum (the statute-sessions), a meeting in every hundred of constables and householders, by custom, for the ordering of servants, and debating of differences between masters and servants, rating of wages, etc, 5 Eliz. c. 4....
Common employment
Common employment. The general rule that a master is liable for damage caused by the negligence of his servant has the exception that where the person injured is the fellow-servant of and engaged in common employment with the person whose negligence causes the injury, the master is not liable in an action at Common law. The principle upon which the exception rests is that 'a servant who engages for the performance of services for compensation does as an implied part of the contract take upon himself, as between himself and his master, the natural risks and perils incident to the performance of such services; the presumption of law being that the compensation was adjusted accordingly, or, in other words, that these risks are considered in the wages' [per Balckburn, J., Morgan v. Vale of Neath R. Co., (1864) 5 B&S 578]. For review of cases, see Bray, J., in Cribb v. Kynoch, Ltd., (1907) 2 KB 548. The doctrine applies in spite of difference in rank or grade between the two servants, e.g.,...
Negligence
Negligence, acting carelessly, a question of law or fact or of mixed fact and law, depending entirely upon the nature of a duty, which the person charged with negligence has failed to comply with or perform in the particular circumstance of each case. A very convenient classification has been formulated corresponding to the degree of negligence entailing liability measured by the degree of care undertaken or required in each case, i.e., (1) ordinary, which is the want of ordinary diligence; (2) slight, the want of great diligence; and (3) gross, the want of slight diligence. A smaller degree of negligence will render a person liable for injury to infants than in the case of adults, see Cooke v. Midland Great Western Railway, 1909 AC 229; and Glasgow Corporation v. Taylor, (1922) 1 AC 44. There is also a peculiar duty to take precaution in the case of dangerous Articles, see Dominion Natural Gas Co. v. Collins, 1909 AC 640. This case should be distinguished from the principle in Fletche...
Master, servant and pradhan
Master, servant and pradhan, A Pradhan cannot be considered as a servant of the Govt. He is an elected representative. There is no contractual relationship between him and the Govt. much less the relationship of master and servant, Sub-Divisional Officer v. Shambhoo Narain Singh, AIR 1970 SC 140 (142): (1970) 1 SCR 151: (1969) 1 SCC 825....
Fellow - servant
Fellow - servant, At Common Law a master is not liable to his servant for injury caused by the negligence of a fellow-servant, Priestly v. Fowler, (1837) 3 M. & W. 1, but this state of the law was altered by the (English) Employers Liability Act, 1880 (43 & 44 Vict. c. 42), at first limited to expire on the 31st December, 1887, but since continued by successive (English) Expiring Laws Continuance Acts. See COMMON EMPLOYMENT; WORK-MEN'S COMPENSATION ACT. At Common Law a master is not liable to his servant for injury caused by the negligence of a fellow-servant, Priestly v. Fowler, (1837) 3 M. & W. 1, but this state of the law was altered by the (English) Employers Liability Act, 1880 (43 & 44 Vict. c. 42), at first limited to expire on the 31st December, 1887, but since continued by successive (English) Expiring Laws Continuance Acts. See COMMON EMPLOYMENT; WORK-MEN'S COMPENSATION ACT....
Wages
Wages, if the remuneration is to be paid daily or weekly, it can be called wages. But when it is monthly remuneration payable on the last day of the month or after that date, and when the remuneration considering the general standards of payments is fairly high, then it has to be understood as salary, K.V.V. Sharma (in re), (1952) 2 Mad LJ 917.Includes any bonus or other additional remunera-tion etc., and any sum 'payable to such person by reason of the termination of his employment, A.R. Sarin v. B.C. Patil, AIR 1951 Bom 423.Means remuneration payable to an employee under an award or settlement, Purshottam v. Potdar, AIR 1966 SC 856.Means remuneration which an employer is liable to pay, if the term of the contract of employment are fulfilled. In other words, they are payments made by an employer for services rendered, G.M. Joshi v. First Civil Judge, AIR 1958 Bom 262.Wages, ought to include gratuity as well, Tirjugi Sitaram v. Badlu Prasad Bheru Prasad, AIR 1962 MP 361.The compensatio...
Master
Master [fr. meester, Dut.; maistre, Fr.; magister, Lat.], a director; a governor; a teacher; one who has servants; the head of a college; the captain of a ship; an officer of the Supreme Court; and see MASTERS.It means--(a) in relation to any vessel or aircraft means any person, other than a pilot, harbour master, assistant harbour master or berthing master, having for the time being the charge or control of such vessel or aircraft, as the case maybe; and(b) in relation to any boat belonging to a ship, means the master of that ship. [Explosives Act, 1884 (4 of 1884), s. 4 (g)]Includes any person (except a pilot or harbour master) having command or charge of a ship. [Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (44 of 1958), s. 3(22)]In relation to any vessel or any aircraft making use of any port, means any person having for the time being the charge or control of such vessel or such aircraft, as the case may be, except a pilot, harbour master, assistant harbour master, dock master or berthing master o...
Embezzlement
Embezzlement, the appropriation to his own use by a clerk or servant of money, valuable securities or chattels received by him for and on account of his master or employer. Embezzlement differs from larceny in this, that in the former the property misappropriated is not at the time in the actual or legal possession of the owner, whilst in the latter it is. The distinctions between larceny and embezzle-ment are often extremely nice and subtle, and it is sometimes difficult to say under which head the offence ranges. Unless the offender is a clerk or servant whose business it is to receive money for his master, he is not guilty of embezzlement. But if he have been employed to receive it in a single instance, he need not be a general servant. Partners stealing or embezzling money, etc., belonging to the co-partnership may be convicted and punished as if they had not been such partners. [(English) Larceny Act, 1916, s. 40 (4)]The fraudulent taking of personal property with which one has be...
- << Prev.
- Next >>