Yajnavalkya-smriti (Vyavaharadhyaya)—Critical study
by Kalita Nabanita | 2017 | 87,413 words
This page relates ‘Laws Relating to Breach of Contract of Service’ of the study on the Vyavaharadhyaya of the Yajnavalkya-smriti: one of the most prominent Smritis dealing with Dharmashastra (ancient Indian science of law), dating to the 1st century B.C. The Yajnavalkyasmriti scientifically arranges its contents in three sections: Acara (proper conduct), Vyavahara (proper law) and Prayashcitta (expiation). Vyavahara deals with judicial procedure and legal system such as substantive law and procedural law.
Chapter 5.12 - Laws Relating to Breach of Contract of Service
The title of law known as abhyupetyāśuśrūṣā, dealt with by Yājñavalkya comprises of only three verses. It contains the laws regulating the rights and obligations in the relationship of master and servants. Actually, it deals with the laws on slavery. The Mitākṣarā commentary explains that when someone undertakes to render service, which is the performance of an order and afterwards does not fulfil it, then a cause of action arises and is known as the breach of contract of service.[1] The Nāradasmṛti defines that if a man after making promise to render service does not render it, then it is the title of law known as breach of contract of service.[2]
Yājñavalkya at the outset of this topic prescribes rule regarding the release of a slave. One, who is made slave by force and one, who is sold as a slave by a thief or robber shall be released. Likewise, law ordains release of a slave who has saved the life of his master. Slaves are also to be released on payment of the expenses of maintenances or by paying off the debt.[3] It is to be noticed that Yājñavalkya has referred to in the text, the modes of release, i.e., how a slave is entitled to be released. He disapproves the slavery made forcibly and one becoming so, due to the act of robbers. In this context, the Mitākṣarā comments that if they are not released by their owner or master, then the King should release them. The person who has accepted slavery for being fed or for maintenance are to be released when the amount of money as may have been consumed from the date of his enslavement is offered to the master. A slave created by pledge or by indebtedness should be released on repayment of the amount along with interest to master receives, for which he had been pledged, etc.[4] In the foregoing rule, though Yājñavalkya mentions the rule for emancipation of slaves, yet, an exception is laid down regarding an apostate from asceticism. According to him, an apostate from asceticism, i.e. one who has deviated from the path of religious mendicant shall remain King’s slave till his death. [5] This means, he cannot get released from servitude during his lifetime. Yājñavalkya also accepts that slavery is to be followed according to the natural order of caste but not in reverse order.[6] It means a man of inferior caste can be slave to a superior caste. However, a man of higher caste shall not become slave to a lower caste.
The dispute between an apprentice and his master is brought within the ambit of the breach of contract of service. Yājñavalkya has considered the position of the apprentice with his master in the light of the relation between master and servant. Therefore, he introduces a new set of law. An apprentice, i.e., one residing with master artisans to learn some art or craft is under obligation to remain in his master’s house for the full period of contract, even though, he has acquired the art before stipulated period. During the period of learning the art, he receives his subsistence from the master or teacher and has to provide the latter with the fruits of his labour.[7]
Modern law has completely banned slavery in any form, which is in practice in the society. Article 23 of the Indian Constitution states that traffic in human beings and beggar and other similar forms of forced labour are prohibited and any contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable in accordance with laws.[8] Therefore, bonded labour is prohibited under this Article. Same view is found in the law of Yājñavalkya, andhe too declares that those who are enslaved by force must be released. Thus, he has prohibited this sort of slavery being illegal. In spite of this provision, a number of laws are enacted to prevent slavery in India.
The provision relating to apprenticeship finds more or less familiarity with the present laws of apprenticeship under the Apprentice’s Act 1961. Section 11 of this Act deals with the obligation of employer to provide the apprentice with the training in his trait according to the provisions of this Act. Under Section 13, an apprentice can get stipend but not on the basis of piece work, or cannot get any output bonus or other incentive. Section 12 mentions obligations of apprentices to learn his trait or subject of field conscientiously, diligently and endeavour to qualify himself as a skilled craftsmen before the expiry of the period of training. He has to carry out all lawful orders of his employer. According to Section 7 (b), if the apprentice fails to carry out the terms and conditions of the contract, then he or his guardian has to refund to the employer the cost of training.[9] Thus, these provisions of modern law are comparable with the laws of the Yājñavalkyasmṛti provided under the topic, breach of contract of service.
Footnotes and references:
[1]:
ājñākaranaṃ śuśrūṣā tāmaṅgīkṛtya paścādyo na saṃpādayati tadvivādapadamabhypetyāśuśrūṣākhyam/ Mitākṣarā on Yājñavalkyasmṛti,2.182
[2]:
abhyupetya ca śuśrūṣāṃ yastāṃ na pratipadyate/ aśuśrūṣābhyupetyaitadvivādapadamucyate// Nāradasmṛti,4.5. 1
[3]:
balāddāsīkṛtaścaurairvikrītaścāpi mucyate/ svāmiprāṇaprado bhaktatyāgāttanniṣkrayādapi// Yājñavalkyasmṛti,2.182
[7]:
kṛteśilpo’pi nivaset kṛtakālaṃ gururgṛhe/ antevāsī guruprāptabhojanastatphalapradaḥ// Ibid.,2.184
[8]:
Vide, Pandey, J.N., The Constitutional Law of India, page 317