Christoffel, S.Z. V. Dhanarath Menika

1949 Present: Wijeyewardene C.J.

CHRISTOFFELSZ, Appellant, and DHANARATH MENIKA,
Respondent

S. C. 314-Workmen's Compensation Case No. C 3/140/47

Workmen's Compensation Ordinance-Failure to make claim in time- Ignorance of provisions of Ordinance-Not sufficient cause-Chapter 117-Section 16.

Ignorance of the provisions of section 16 (1) of the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance is not a sufficient cause within the meaning of section 16 (2) for failure to make a claim within the prescribed time.

APPEAL on a question of law under the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance.

H. W. Jayewardene, for the appellant.

V. D. M. Samarakoon, Crown Counsel, as amicus curiae.

Cur. adv. vult.

July 25, 1949. WIJEYEWARDENE C.J.-

This is an appeal on a question of law under the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance.

The applicant-respondent instituted this claim for compensation against the respondent-appellant in respect of the death of her husband, W. M. Punchi Banda, on the ground that Punchi Banda died as the result of an accident arising out of arid in the course of his employment under the respondent-appellant.

Punchi Banda died on December 17, 1947, immediately after he was gored by a bull of the respondent-appellant. The applicant-respondent sent petition A2 of December 29, 1947, to the Assistant Labour Controller, Ratnapura, making her claim for compensation and asking him to hold an inquiry and grant compensation. She wrote letter Al of January 12 1948, inviting attention of that officer to A2. She instituted the present claim for compensation under section 16 of the Ordinance on July 12, 1948.

The Deputy Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation expressed the view that A2 and Al indicated that the applicant-respondent " first sought relief through the intervention of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour at Ratnapura " and held, therefore, that the failure to institute the claim in due time was due to " sufficient cause ". He awarded Rs. 600 as compensation, in addition to costs.

Section 16 (1) of the Ordinance enacts that " no proceedings for the recovery of compensation shall be maintainable before a Commissioner unless .... the claim for compensation .... has been instituted .... within six months from the date of death ". Section 16 (2) states that " The Commissioner may admit and decide any claim to compensation in any case notwithstanding .... that the claim has not been instituted in due time . .. . if he is satisfied that the failure so .... to institute a claim . . . was due to sufficient cause ".

The petition A2 or the letter Al cannot be regarded as an application for compensation to the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation (vide sections 2 and 34). The proceedings before the Commissioner do not show why the applicant-respondent sent A2 and Al to the Assistant Labour Controller, Ratnapura. No evidence has been given seeking to explain the delay in making the claim before the Commissioner. The Crown Counsel, who appeared as amicus curiae, pleaded that the applicant-respondent addressed A2 and Al to the Assistant Labour Controller. Ratnapura, owing to her ignorance of the provisions of the Ordinance. Even on that plea, I am unable to hold there is " sufficient cause " within the meaning of section 16 (2). If I hold that the ignorance of the provisions of section 16 (1) is a sufficient cause " for failing to comply with its requirements, I would, in effect, be repealing that part of the Ordinance (vide Roles v. Pascall & Sons [(1911) 1 King's Bench 982.] )

I am compelled to reverse the order of the Commissioner and dismiss the application of the applicant-respondent. I make no order as to coats.

Appeal allowed.
 

Click Here to Read the rest of this document