067-NLR-NLR-V-51-CHRISTOFFELSZ-Appellant-and-DHANARATH-MENIKA-Respondent.pdf
WIJEVEWAHDKNK C.J.— Clnistoffelsz t. Dhanarath Menika
275
1949Present: Wijeyewardene C.J.
CHRISTOFFELSZ, Appellant, and DHANARATH MENIKA,Respondent
S.0. 314—Workmen'8 Compensation Case No. C 3jl40j47
Workmen's Compensation Ordinance—Failure to make claim in time-ignorance oj previsions of Ordinance—Not. sufficient cause—Chapter117—Section 16.
Ignorance of the provisions of section 16 (1) of the Workmon’s Com-'pensation Ordinance is not a sufficient cause within the meaning ofsection 16 (2) for failure to make a claim within the prescribed time.
.Appeal on a question of law under the Workmen’s CompensationOrdinance.
W. Jayewardene, for the appellant.
A’. D. M. Samarakoon, Crown Counsel, as amicus curiae.
Cur. adv. inUt.
July 25,1949. Wueyewardene C.J.—
This is an appeal on a question of law under the Workmen’sCompensation Ordinance.
The applicant-respondent instituted this claim for compensationagainst the respondent-appellant in respect of the death of her husband,
W.M. Punchi Banda, on the ground that Punchi Banda died as theresult of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employmentunder the respondent-appellant.
Punchi Banda died on December 17, 1947, immediately after ho wasgored by a bull of tbe respondent-appellant. The applicant-respondentsont petition A2 of December 29,1947, to the Assistant Labour Controller,Ratnapura, making hor claim for compensation and asking him toholdaninquiry and grant compensation. She wrote letter A1 of January 121948, inviting attention of that officer to A2. She instituted thepresent claim for compensation under section 16 of the Ordinance onJuly 12, 1948.
Func.himafuitm.wja v. Mcdagimui
270
The Deputy Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation expressedthe view that A2 and A1 indicated that the applicant-respondent “ firstsought relief through the intervention of the Assistant Commissioner ofLabour at Ratnapura ” and held, ihoreforo, that the failure to institutethe claim in due time was due to “ sufficient cause He awardedRs. 600 as compensation, in addition to costs.
Section 16 (l)of the Ordinance enacts that “ no proceedings for therecovery of compensation shall bo maintainable before a Commissionerunless …. the claim for compensation …. has beeninstituted …. within six months from the date of deathSection 16 (2) states that “ The Commissioner may admit and decideany 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 A1 cannot be regarded as an applicationfor compensation to the Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation(vide sections 2 and 34). The proceedings before the Commissioner donot show why the applicant-respondent, sent A2 and A1 to the AssistantLabour Controller, Ratnapura. No evidence has been given seeking toexplain the delay in making the claim before the Commissioner. TheCrown Counsel, who appeared as amicus curiae, pleaded that tho applicant-respondent addressed A2 and A1 to the Assistant Labour Controller,Ratnapura, owing to her ignorance of tho provisions of the Ordinance.Even on that plea, 1 am unable to hold there is “ sufficient cause ”within the meaning of section 16 (2). If I hold that the ignorance of theprovisions of section 16 (1) is a “ sufficient cause ” for failing to complywith its requirements, I would, in effect, be repealing that part of theOrdinance (vide. Roles v. Pascall dc Sons1.)
I am compelled to reverse the order of the Commissioner and dismissthe application of the applicant-respondent. I make no order as to costs.
Appeal allowed.
♦