RODRIGO v. MEL.P. C., Panadure, 12 529,
Ma iter and ter cant— Ordinance No. 11 of 1865—Agreement to attend at certainplacet for toaget for dragging fishing nett.
A person who by a written contract undertakes for wages to attend atcertain places for and in the work of dragging nets cast into the sea isnot a servant within the meaning of the Ordinance No. 11 of 1865.
HE facts of the case appear in the judgment of the SupremeCourt.
Jayawardene, for appellant.
Pereira, for respondent.
19th February, 1895. Withers, J.—
This is a written contract whereby one person, for certain wages,undertakes to attend at certain places for and in the work ofdragging nets cast into the sea.
In my opinion such a person as the defendant is not a servantwithin the meaning of the Ordinance No. 11 of 1865 ;.and if he isnot a servant, it goes without saying thathe cannot contract himselfinto what I may call the criminal provisions of that Ordinance. Ido not Bee how it could be said of this man that he quitted theservice of his employer, and thiB is what he has been convicted of.10-
( 9* )
Even if this is a contract within the purview of section 7 of theLabour Ordinance, it is not alleged and proved by the complainantthat the defendant neglected or refused to attend at any of theplaces, or at any of the times mentioned in the contract, withoutreasonable cause, or that he was guilty of any wilf ol disobedience oforders that might well be given him daring the days in which hewas required to attend for the dragging of nets.
Hence, because he is not a servant under the Ordinance, andbecause he has not been proved to have violated his contract inany sense appropriate to the contract within the 11th section ofthe Ordinance, I set aside the conviction and acquit the accused.
RODRIGO v. MEL