It seems to me that the situation is exactly within the language of A.L. Smith L.J in Groves vs Lord Wimborne, where he said at page 406: ' in question, ' the Factory & Workshop Act, 1878 'which followed numerous other Acts in pari materia, is not 179 in the nature of a private legislative bargain between employers and workmen, as the learned judge seemed to think, but is a public Act passed in favour of the workers in factories and workshops to compel their employers to do certain things for their protection and benefit. ' The Lord Justice then said at page 407: 'Could it be doubted that, if section 5 stood alone, and no fine were provided by the Act for contravention of its provisions, a person injured by a breach of the absolute and unqualified duty imposed by that section would have a cause of action in respect of that breach? Clearly it could not be doubted.