142-NLR-NLR-V-54-D.-L.-SENARATNE-Appellant-and-H.-A.-MAGGIE-NONA-Respondent.pdf
Senaratne v. Maggie Nona'
575
1953Present: Swan J.
D. L. SENARATNE, Appellant, and H. A. MAGGIE NONA,
Respondent
S. C. 764—Workmen’s Compensation C 3/171[51
Workmen’s Compensation Ordinance {Cap. 117)—Section 2—Meaning of “ workman ”.
Where a casual labourer who was employed by the owner of an estate bunga-low for the purpose of tarring the roof of the bungalow met with hie death as theresult of falling down from the roof—
Held, that the labourer was a workman employed for the purposes of the em-ployer’s trade or business so as to bring himself within the definition of “ work-man ” in section 2 of the Workmen’s Compensation Ordinance.
T^PPEAE from an order made under the Workmen’s CompensationOrdinance.
N. M. de Silva, for the respondent-appellant.
S. W. Jayasuriya, with S. Sharvananda, for the applicant-respondent.
Cur. adv. vuU.
676
SWAN J.—-Senaratne v. Maggie Nona
January 13, 1953. Swan J.—
pj=e only matter that arises for consideration on this appeal is whetherthe deceased KL. L. Charles, husbandof the respondent above-named, wasa workman within the meaning of section 2 of the Workmen’sCompensation Ordinance 19 of 1934 (Cap. 117). It is there stated that a“ workman ” means :—
“ any person who is employed on wages not exceeding three hundredrupees per mensem in any such capacity as is for the time being speci-fied in Schedule II, whether the remuneration is calculated by timeor by work done or otherwise, and whether the contract of employmentor service was made before or after the commencement of this Ordinanceand whether such contract is expressed or implied, oral or in writing, hutdoes not include—
(a) a person whose employment is of a casual nature and who isemployed otherwise than for the purposes of the employer’strade or business.”
The Assistant Commissioner of Labour has found that the deceasedmet with his death as the result of falling down from the roof of an estatebungalow belonging to the appellant. He was tarring the roof at the re-quest of the watcher of the estate. The Assistant Commissioner hasrejected the evidence of the watcher and incidentally that of the appellantthat the watcher was acting as an independent contractor in this instance.In other words there is a finding of fact that the appellant employed thedeceased for this work through the agency of his watcher. It was withoutdoubt casual employment—so that the question to determine is whetherthis casual employment was for the purposes of the employer’s trade orbusiness. The Assistant Commissioner has held that it was so, and Imust uphold In's finding. In Manton v. Cantwell1 the House of Lords heldthat a casual labourer who met with his death while repairing afarmhouse in which the farmer lived was a workman employed for thepurposes of the employer’s trade or business so as to bring himselfwithin the definition of “ workman ” in Section 13 of the Workmen’sCompensation Act of 1906. With that holding I am in respectfulagreement. The appeal therefore fails and I would dismiss it with costs
1 1920 A. C. 781.
Appeal dismissed.
c
e
PRINTED AT THE CEYLON GOVERNMENT PRESS, COLOMBO