( 100 )
GOVERNMENT AGENT, S; P., v. JAMES.
P. G., Galle 22,125.
Ordinance No. 2 of 1896—Declaration under the Ordinance—Liability . of’coolies or workmen.
Where it was contended that coolies or workmen working at a minewere not responsible for the failure of their employers to make declara-tion under the Ordinance No. 2 of 1896,—
Held, that this Ordinance makes no exception in favour of coolies orworkmen, who may mine for plumbago at the instance of their employers.Who have not made the necessary declaration.
HE Government Agent of the Southern Province charged sixmen under section 6 of Ordinance No. 2 of 1896 with
working a, mine without, giving the Government Agent thedeclarations required under that Ordinance. Of the accused, thesecond, third, fourth, and fifth were admittedly the coolies, andthe sixth the manager, of Mr. Amarasuriya, the owner of the landcontaining the mines.
The first accused was an arachchi. The other five, being expertsin plumbago mining, took what is known as a haya-hawul to digplumbago on Mr. Amarasuriya’s land. Mr. Amarasuriya got hisground share from the accused.
The first accused was acquitted, and the rest were convicted andsentenced to pay Rs. 20 each.
The case came up for argument before Grenier, A.J., on 80thSeptember, 1903.
Morgan de Saram, for appellant.—-Coolies are not liable, butthe persons who employed them. The persons liable to punish-ment are those who fail to give the necessary declaration, and itis only the employers who can do this. The second accused,being a cooly, is therefore not liable.
Rdmanathan, S.-G.—It is proved that the accused are not cooliesbut shareholders. The case is that the accused were shareholdersand were warned three times. None of them furnished theGovernment Agent with a -declaration. Even if they are coolies,the Ordinance makes no exception in their favour.
Gut. adv. vult *
3rd October, 1903. Grenier, A.J.—
The’Ordinance (No. 2 of 1896) makes no exception in favour ofcoolies or workmen, who may mine for plumbago at the instanceof their employers, who have not made the necessary declaration.11-
( no )1908. If the appellant with the other accused who have not appealedOdc^ar 3. were the servants at Mr. Amarasuriya or the sixth accused, whicha j I doubt, they cannot shield themselves behind either of them,because mining operations, as found by the Magistrate, weregoing on on the land in July in a pit belonging to the accused,and Mr. Amarasuriya did not make the declaration till the 15thAugust. It may be that Mr. Amarasuriya has also made himselfliable under the Ordinance, but as he has not been charged in thiscase I will say nothing more. Affirmed.