Back
VEERAPATHERAN v. PROPRIETORS OF EKKERALLA ESTATE
NLR30V199
Present: Drieberg J.
VEERAPATHERAN v. PROPRIETORS OF EKKERALLA
ESTATE.
123-C. R. Ratnapura, 20,310.
Master and
servant-Action for wages by labourer-Quitting service without notice-Right of
employer to forfeit wages-Time of payment-Ordinance No. 13 of 1889, s. 10.
A labourer, who has quitted service without notice, is entitled to maintain an
action under section 10 of Ordinance No. 13 of 1889 to recover wages due for a
completed term of service. In such a case the labourer may be paid his wages for
the previous month at any time during the following month ; whereas, if he had
given notice he would be entitled to payment on the termination of the contract.
THIS was
an action instituted under section 10 of Ordinance I No. 13 of 1889 by a head
kangany for himself and on behalf of fifty labourers employed on Ekkeralla
estate against the proprietors of the estate for the recovery of wages for the
month of June, 1927, amounting to a sum of Rs. 500. It was contended on behalf
of the defendants that the plaintiffs were not entitled to then-wages as they
had left the defendants' service without notice. The Commissioner of Requests
held that no notice had been given by the plaintiffs but that they were not
disentitled for that reason from claiming their wages.
N. E. Weerasooria, for defendants, appellant.-Plaintiffs have not complied with
the provisions of the Labour Ordinance in the matter of giving notice of
termination of their services. Therefore they cannot avail themselves of the
provisions of this Ordinance to recover their wages. Further, the Commissioner
finds that they
did not give notice at the end of
the month and that they left on June 30,1927. They did not work on June 30.
They are therefore
not entitled to recover any wages for the period they actually of worked
in June. The principle of quantum meruit will not apply to
Estate contracts of this nature. Counsel referred to the case of Cutter
v. power.1[1 Smiths Leading Cases, Vol. 11., p. 17; 20 Halsbury, Master,
and Servant . 216-218.]
Aiyar, for the Agent of the Government of India.-Appellants' contention is
wrong because the respondent's contract is one contemplated by section 5 of
Ordinance No. 13 of 1889. Sections 6 (1) and (3) merely provide for manner of
giving notice and the time of payment. Their wages could in any event be claimed
under the Ordinance. See section 10.
As regards the question whether the principle of quantum meruit could be applied
to this case, this does not arise. There is no distinct finding by the
Commissioner as to the exact moment when the plaintiffs left service. The
evidence is they were on the estate on June 30 for muster. They must therefore
be paid for the period for which they actually worked. The failure to give
notice does not work a forfeiture of wages already earned.
October 30, 1928. DRIEBERG J.-
This appeal was listed before my brother Dalton, who, in view of the plaintiffs
not being represented and of the importance of the question involved, directed
that the appeal be set down for argument after notice to the Agent of the
Government of India in Ceylon.
This action was brought under the' provisions of section 10 of Ordinance No. 13
of 1889 by Veerapatheran, a head kangany, for himself and on behalf of fifty
labourers who were employed on Ekkeralla estate, against the appellants, the
proprietors of the estate, for the recovery of wages for the month of June,
1927, which they estimated at about Rs. 500. The plaint was filed on October 21,
1927. The questions for decision are not affected by the amending Ordinance No.
27 of 1927, which came into operation on December 24,1927.
The appellants appeared by their proctor and undertook to file a statement and
produce their books. Later they filed an account prepared from the estate check
roll showing only the amounts due to each of the plaintiffs
