KEUNEMAN J.—Dias and Jane Nona.
1942Present: Keuneman J.
DIAS, Appellant, and JANE NONA, Respondent.
751—Workmen’s Compensation C. 3 62/41.
Workmen’s Compensation (Cap. 117), s. 3—Workman employed by Superin-tendent of estate after hours—Death by snake bite—Liability of employer.The deceased was employed as a factory worker in the store of anestate. His work ceased for the day at 4.30 p.m. It would appearthat he had entered into a private arrangement with the Superintendentby which he was permitted to live in his bungalow and obtain his meals.It was no part of his contract with the estate. On the day in questionabout 7 p.m. the deceased went to close a cage in which fowls belongingto the Superintendent as well as the deceased were kept. The deceasedwas bitten by a snake and died as a result.
Held, that the deceased did not receive personal injuries by anaccident arising out of and in the course of his employment under theproprietor of the estate within .the meaning of section 3 of the Workmen’sCompensation Ordinance.
PPEAL from an order of the Commissioner under the Workmen’sCompensation Ordinance.
E. F. N. Gratiaen (with N. M. de Silva), for respondent, appellant.
No appearance for claimant, respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
November 24, 1942. Keuneman J.—
This is a proceeding under the Workmen’s Compensation Ordinanceand the only question which remains for determination is whether thedeceased Simon Singho received personal injuries by an accident arisingout of and in the course of his employment.
The respondent to the application appears to be Mr. S. Dias of Savitri,Turret road, Colombo, who carries on business under the business nameof Dias Peiris & Co. He appears to. have been the party who actuallycontested the proceedings but to judge by the caption it is rather difficultto know who is the real respondent because the caption shows that atone place the Superintendent of Kekirihena estate, ifnalawatta, is therespondent and another place shows Dias Peiris & Co., as the respondents.I think it would suffice if we treat the present proceedings on the footingof the liability of Mr. S. Dias who carries on business under the name ofDias Peiris & Co.
KEUNEMAN J.—Dias and Jane Nona.
It appears that the deceased Simon Singho was employed as a factoryworker and that he was working i!n the store. According to the Superin-tendent, Mr. Mendis, the deceased used to work in the factory and store-house and the curing shed and the deceased commenced work at 7 a.m.,worked until 11.30 a.m. and then re-started after meals at 1 p.m., andceased work for the day at 4.30 p.m. For this work the deceased waspaid at the rate of 52 cents a day. That appears to have been his regularworking hours and it was not part of his contract with the proprietorsof the estate that he should have any accommodation or lodging on theestate itself. It appears, however' that he had entered into some kindof private arrangement with the Superintendent of the estate by whichhe was permitted to live in the bungalow of the Superintendent andobtain meals at the rate of Rs. 6 a month. There is some evidencethat for some period he was helping the cook and in fact functioned forone month in place of the cook. This is the evidence of the Conductorof the estate, Sergius de Silva. This is not admitted by the Superin-tendent of the estate who gave evidence and who says that he had a cookwhom he employed all thrbughout and that the deceased never cookedfor him. He added that if the deceased did cook it would be contraryto the instructions of the employers.
However that may be,- it appears that the deceased on the day inquestion at about 7 p.m, went to close a fowl cage. In that cage therewere apparently fowls belonging to the deceased as well as fowls belongingto the Superintendent. The deceased was bitten by a snake and diedas a result of that bite. I cannot see myself that it can be said that thiswas an accident arising out of and in .the course of his employment underthe proprietor of the estate.. , It seems clear on the evidence that’ as faras the proprietors are concerned he was employed only during theworking hours of 7 a.m. to 4.30 p.m., and it was not a part of his employ-ment to remain on the estate after the hour of 4.30 p.m. It is possiblethat the deceased entered into some kind of private arrangement withthe Superintendent of the estate, but it is by no means established on theevidence that it was any part of his employment under the proprietorsthat he should work after the hour 4.30 p.m., that he should continue towork till 7 p.m., or that his work included that of looking after the fowlcage at all. It is not clear on the evidence of Sergius de Silva, the Con-ductor, that he was actually employed to act for the cook at the timewhen the ^accident took place. It is possible that at this time he wasmerely being permitted by the Superintendent to stay in the bungalowand obtain his food at Rs. 6 a month. – I do not think this can beregarded as a hazard arising out of and in the course of his employmentunder the respondent. I think, therefore, that as far as the respondentS. Dias is concerned he cannot be made liable to pay compensation inrespect of this agcident. I do not, of . course, decide what liability, ifany, attaches to the Superintendent of the estate in his personal capacity.That matter has not been gone into in these proceedings.
The appeal is allowed.