424 SIBNBTAMBY, J.—Balakrishnan v. Commissioner -for Registration
of Indian and Pakistani Residents
1959Present: Sinnetamby, i.BADAKRISHNAN, Appellant, and COMMISSIONER FORREGISTRATION OF INDIAN AND PAKISTANI RESIDENTS,
8. C. 7—Citizenship Case No. E. 4935
Indian and Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) Act, No. 3 of 1949—Section 6(2) (i)—“ Assured income ”.
A daily paid labourer who is able to obtain fairly regular employment andsecure a lawful means of livelihood is possessed of an ensured income within themeaning of section 6 (2) (i) of the Indian and Pakistani Residents (Citizenship)Act.
JTvpPEAIi under the Indian and Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) Act.'
A. C. Krishnarajah, for the Applicant-Appellant.
J. W. Subasinghe, Crown Counsel, for the Respondent.
April 28,1959. Sinnetamby, J.—
The applicant was required to establish to the satisfaction of the DeputyCommissioner (1) that he was permanently settled in Ceylon, (2) thathe was resident in Ceylon from 1st January, 1936, to June, 1951, withoutabsence exceeding 12 months on any single occasion, and (3) that he wason the date of his application possessed of an assured income of areasonable amount or had some suitable business or employment or otherlawful means of livelihood to support himself and his dependants. TheDepnty Commissioner was satisfied in regard to requirements (1) and (2),bnt in regard to requirement (3) he held that the applicant had notestablished that he was possessed of an assured income of a reasonableamount or had some other suitable business or employment. Thereason he gives for ibis finding is that the applicant had “ got employedunder different contractors on a land on which the Central School,Matugama, is situated. This employment is not secure.” He also says“ The applicant also admitted it.” What he has admitted is that he isnot a Government servant nor is he paid by an estate and that he is acasual labourer paid by a contractor. He however states that he ispaid Rb. 2 /50 a day and that he sometimes works for 20 days in a monthand at other times for about 25 days in a month. Quite a large numberof people in this country are employed in this way, being daily paidlabourers under contractors or other persons who employ daily paid
SINNETAMBY, J.—Balakrishnan v. Commissioner for Registration 423.
of Indian and Pakistani Residents
labour. If the inference drawn by the Deputy Commissioner is correct,all these people must be regarded as persons not haring suitable employ-ment or other lawful means of livelihood. The fact remains that from theyear 1950 up to the date on which he gave evidence the applicant had beenemployed in this way and has been able to maintain himself and to bein receipt of an income of at least Rs. 50 a month, according to him.Havingregard to the status and position of the applicant, one cannotsay that this income is insufficient for his requirements.
My attention was drawn to certain observations of H. N. Q. Fernando, J.in the case of Pandaram v The Commissioner for the Registration of Indian-and Pakistani Residents1. In the course of his observations the learnedJudge stated, “ An employment which is reasonably likely to be regularand permanent and not casual or intermittent and which is of a commonor recognized type would prima facie be suitable to support the applicantand his dependants.” The learned Judge was there referring to the factsof that particular case and I do not think he meant that what he statedshould be accepted as a principle governing all cases. The best test toascertain whether a person has suitable employment to support himselfand his dependants would be to see if in the recent past he has been ablefrom his employment to so maintain himself. If he has, it .seems to methat such employment must also be regarded as suitable. To take anyother view would mean that every daily paid labourer whose services ■could be dispensed with on a day’s notice would come within the categoryof persons not possessed of a suitable employment or'other lawful meansof livelihood. Even if the view is taken that for an employment to besuitable it must have some degree of permanence, nevertheless it seemsto me that a daily paid labourer who is able to obtain fairly regularemployment and secure a lawful means of livelihood would comply withthe requirements of section 6 (2) (i) of the Act.
The other reason given by the Deputy Commissioner is that theapplicant had applied and indeed had been registered in the EmploymentExchange. It would seem that there is some evidence to show that theobject of his so registering himself was to improve his lot. He was in factoffered by the Employment Exchange a permanent job as a sweeper,at the Meegahatenna Police Station but he refused it. He apparentlypreferred to be a labourer on a daily paid basis than be a sweeper at thePolice Station.
In these circumstances the Deputy Commissioner, in my opinion,was wrong in holding that the applicant had failed to satisfy him inregard to the third requirement. I would accordingly set aside theorder of the Deputy Commissioner and send the case back for steps to betaken on the basis that the applicant has made out a prima facie casefor registration. The applicant is entitled to the costs of appeal whichI fix at Rs. 105.
Order set aside.
(1957) 68 N. L. ft. 443.
G. BALAKRISHNANA, Appellant, and COMMISSIONER FOR REGISTRATION OF INDIAN AND P