JUDGMENT 1. We are of opinion that this rule should be made absolute. The proceeding was one under Act XIII of 1859 on a contract for three years entered into on the 26th July 1903. It was attempted to be enforced in July 1905, and the accused returned to work. Sometime after he left work. On the 11th January 1906, another case under that Act against the accused was dismissed. On the 3rd February, another action was also dismissed. In the third action, on the allegation that breaches of contract under the Act were successive, the Chief Presidency Magistrate issued summons under secs. 2 and 3 of the Act on the 16th February. The accused did not attend and afterwards a rule was issued by this Court. We are of opinion that, three years having already expired, the contract cannot be specifically enforced and the money recovered under the Act before the Magistrate. We are also of opinion that on account of successive dismissals of complaint any remedy that the complainant might have had under the Act was barred.