Murray-Aynsley CJ:

This appeal raises a question of jurisdiction.Section 45 of Cap. 69 confers jurisdiction in certain cases; this jurisdiction depends on the status of the parties, and the nature of the cause of action.As regards parties, there must be a dispute between an employer and a labourer. "Employer" and "Labourer" are defined in s. 2. Further by sub-section 6 of s. 45 "labourer" includes a subcontractor for labour.The last phrase is not defined.

In the present case the respondents entered into a sub-contract for the construction of a road.The head contractor supplied the materials, the respondents the tools.As these were of a very simple character, I am prepared to agree that the respondents were sub-contractors for labour within the meaning of the sub-section.

However, the jurisdiction is limited to certain causes of action.These are disputes relating to the conditions or period of employment, to advances of goods or money, to wages or to keeping of accounts.In the present case the respondents claimed money due under the sub-contract and considerable sums for "extras". It is admitted that if the Controller has jurisdiction what is claimed must be brought within the category of "wages". The matter is not without difficulty and I do not think that the fact that sub-employment by the "labourer" is contemplated in every case prevents his remuneration from being in the category of "wages". But in the present case the contract was for the making of a considerable stretch of road at so much a square yard, for which the respondents seem to have employed at times more than 50 men each.In these circumstances it seems that to describe the claim as one for "wages" would be to give that word a quite unnatural meaning.Therefore, I find that the Controller lacked jurisdiction and his award must be set aside.

Appeal allowed with costs.Deposit to appellants.

Appeal allowed.