DE KRETSER J.—'Wikramatunge v. Perera.
1939Present: de Kretser J.
WIKRAMATUNGE v. PERERA236—C. R. Colombo, 39,710.
Execution—Wages of a tramway conductor—Not exempt from seizure—CivilProcedure Code, s. 218 (j).
A tramway, conductor is not a labourer within the meaning of section218 (j) of the Civil Procedure Code and his wages are not exempt fromseizure under the section.
PPEAL. from an order of the Commissioner of Requests, Colombo.
S.Subramaniam, for defendant, appellant.
T.Nadarajah, for plaintiff, respondent.
March 17, 1939. de Kretser J.—
The only question raised in this appeal was whether the learned. Com-missioner of Requests was right in holding that the defendant was not alabourer and that therefore his wages were not exempt from seizure undersection 218 (j) of the Civil Procedure Code.
The defendant has been described as the conductor of a tramway carand his duties have been described in the evidence to consist in issuingtickets to passengers and collecting the fare and it has been said that hehas to control the passengers in the tramway car and in doing so exerciseshis discretion.
It has been said that in employing conductors the Company looks totheir character and honesty.
It is clear from this description that the defendant does not comewithin the meaning which one naturally and ordinarily attache to theword “ labourer ”.
In the case of Grigoris v. The Locomotive Superintendent', WoodRenton J. held that a mechanic employed by the Railway Departmenton a daily wage was not a labourer.
In the case of Reddiar v. Abdul Latiff, Drieberg J. held that a lorrydriver was not a labourer.
In Stroud’s Dictionary a labourer is defined to be “ a man who digs anddoes other work of that kind with his hands. A carpenter or a bailiff ora parish clerk is not called a labourer ”.
In Morgan v. The London General Omnibus Co.*, Brett M. R. dealt withthe case of an omnibus conductor and although that decision was under
• is N. L. B. 117.
13 Q. B. D. 832.
•- 30 N. L. R. 95.
DE KRETSER J.—Wikramatunge v. Perera
the Employers’ and Workmen’s Act, it nevertheless is of assistance. Inthat case he refused to distinguish between the conductor of a tramwaycar and the conductor of an omnibus.
All there is said on the other side is that in the Bombay case referredto in the two previous local decisions a spinner was held to be a labourerand the opinion was expressed that the provision in the Code was meantto relieve those who had no other means of livelihood other than theirdaily earnings.
I do not think that the conductor of a tramway car can be put on thesame footing as a spinner, nor do I see any reason for placing him on alower footing than a mechanic or a lorry driver.
I therefore dismiss the appeal.
WIKRAMATUNGE v. PERERA