021-NLR-NLR-V-57-FERNANDO-Appellant-and-APPADURAI-Respondent.pdf
1955Present: Rose, C.J. '
FERNANDO, Appellant, and APPADURAI, Respondent.
S. C. 103—31. C. Kandy, 3,209.
1’a{/cs Boards Ordinance, JVo. 27 of 1941—Sections CO and 52 (6)—“ Hinderingan officer in the exercise of his powers
Tho a ecusecl-appellant prevented nil Inspector of .Labour from n.sking routinoquestions ns to wages mid holidays from a labourer in a tea factory wliilo tliolabourer was in charge of certain noisy machinery.
Held, that tho conduct of tho accused did not amount to hindering an officerin tho exercise of his powers within the meaning of section 52 (6) of tho Wageslionrds Ordinance.
j^^.PPEAL front » judgment of tho Magistrate's Court, Kandy.
H. V. Perera, Q.C., with Sir Uktcatle Jayasundcra, Q.C., and 31. 31.Kumarakula-singham, for the accused-appellant.
Vincent T. Thamolheram, Groini Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
Our. adv. rulf.
February 25, 1955. ■ Rose, C.J.—
In this matter the appellant was convicted of having on 8th June,1953, hindered an Ins|:>ector of Labour, a prescribed officer under theWages Boards Ordinance, in the exercise of his powers under Section 52 (b)of the Ordinance. The allegation was that the appellant prevented thissaid officer from questioning persons in the Tea Factory on PalagallaEstate.
It is to be noted that the questions which were sought to bo askedffom the labourer in question who was engaged in the actual operationof tho machinery at that time did not relate to such matters as thosafety conditions applicable in tho factory during working hours butconcerned questions as to tho rate of wages that the worker in questionwas receiving and whether or not he had been awarded an annual holidaywith full pay.
The history of the matter discloses that on a previous occasion thoappellant and the Inspector of Labour in question had had a differenceof opinion, the Inspector stating that the appellant had boon obstructive
and the appellant contending that the Inspector had asked for a grati-fication. Whatever the true position as to that may bo, the fact remainsthat on the present occasion at about 10.30 in the morning this machinery,which according to the uncontradieted evidence was extremely noisyin operation, was in full blast. The Inspector of Labour accompaniedby another official entered the factory and carried on a shouted conversa-tion with a labourer in charge of the machine. The appellant objectedto this—quite possibly in heated tones—and it is that objection on hispart that is alleged to be the "hindering ” in question.
It is, of coruse, obvious that on the part of a factory owner or managerobstructive tactics against officials carrying out their functions undertho Ordinance cannot bo tolerated. On the other hand, the officials them-sclvesmust take every precaution to sec that their conduct is reasonableand does not verge- upon the provocative. After a-careful consideration ofall the factors in the present matter, I have come to the- conclusion thattho questioning of the labourer at the time when .his noisy machinerywas operating, in order to ask him perfectly routine questions as towages and holidays, was unreasonable and that therefore the appellantin objecting to the official’s conduct did not bring himself within thoscope of the Ordinance.
j would refer to one answer in cross-examination that was given notby the Inspector of Labour but by his companion Appadurai, AssistantCommissioner of Labour, Kandy. This witness when asked whetherit was not a dangerous thing to question a factory worker who wasactually in c-liargo of the machinery in operation answered, " whenworkers are actually working it is the best time to question them ”.
Had the question related to safety conditions—adequate fencingand so on—such an answer might be correct. When, however, thequestions relate to such purely routine, matters as wages and holidayswith pay, it seems to me that the answer discloses an ignorance of thepi’oper functions of tho officials under the Ordinance.
Appeal allowed.
Tho appeal is therefore allowed and the conviction quashed. If thefine lias been j>aid it must be remitted.