( 127 )
Present: Pereira J.
PIERIS v. HENDRIC SINNO.
821—P. C. Panadure, 40,533.
Servant—Labourer—Ordinance No. 11 of 1865, a. 11—Quitting servicewithout notice.
A carriage painter is a servant within the meaning of OrdinanceNo. 11 of 1866.
facts appear sufficiently from the judgment.
A. St. V. Jayewardene, for the accused, appellant, contendedthat the conviction was wrong as the accused did not comewithin the meaning of the term *' servant " as defined in OrdinanceNo. 11 of 1865. The accused is clearly not an " artificer,*' as heis not a person who makes anything. Morgan v. London GeneralOmnibus Company.1
It cannot be said that a painter like the accused is a “ labourer."His trade is one which requires skill and experience. It has beenheld that a lithographing or copying clerk [(1872) 2 Gren. 15], afarrier (Fernando’s Rep. 5), and a barber (Raman v. Kanapathy 2)do not come within the term " servant " under the Ordinance.Similarly, a carriage painter ought to be excluded.
J.W. de Silva, for complainant, respondent, contended thatthe accused’s trade was one which did not require any skill ortraining in the real sense. Every trade practically requires skill.The accused is clearly a labourer.
Cur. adv. vult.
November 25, 1912. Pebeiba J.—
The accused, who is described in the evidence as a ** painter,"ias been convicted under section 11 of Ordinance No. 11 of 1865,a that he, being a monthly paid servant, quitted the service ofis employer, the complainant, without reasonable, cause. TheMagistrate has not elicited, as he should have done, what theomplainant meant when he said that the accused was a “ painter."
he a portrait painter, or one who did the usual painting workl dwelling houses in this country? In his judgment the Magistrate*vs that the accused is “ apparently " a person.painting carriages,rts, &c. The omission in the evidence cannot be supplied in*s way, and I would have been obliged to quash the. conviction* L. B. 13 Q. B. D. 322.2 (1904) 3 Bal. 235.
( 128 )
but for the fact that the accused comeB to the rescue by describinghimself in the petition of appeal as “ a carriage painter.” Thequestion arising in this appeal is whether the accused is a “ servant ”or an “ artificer ” in the sense in Which those words are uBed inOrdinance No. 11 of 1865. The word “ servant ” is defined by theOrdinance to extend to and include “ menial, domestic, and otherlike servants, pioneers, kanganies, and other labourers whetheremployed in agricultural, road, railway, or other like work.” Thedefinition by reason of the use of the word “ include ” is not exhaus-tive, and if the accused can be said to be a “ labourer,” he would,of course, be a servant under the Ordinance. It has been arguedby the counsel for the appellant that the accused'is not a labourer,nor is he an artificer, and that he is therefore altogether exemptedfrom, the operation of the Ordinance. An artificer is a skilledworkman (see Morgan v. London General Omnibus Company *),and it has also been held that he is one who makes something asdistinguished from one who only does something (Palmer v. Snow *).A carriage painter can hardly be said to “ make ” anything, sothat he must be taken off the category composed of artisans. Thequestion then is narrowed down to this: “Is he a labourer?”There is, of course, a class of persons, like chauffeurs or drivers ofmotor cars, who belong to the working classes, but who, as recentlyheld By this Court, are neither “ labourers ” nor “ artificers.”They are not “ artificers ” in that they cannot be said to “ make ”anything, and they are not “ labourers ” in that they are skilledworkmen, and it is contended that the accused belongs to thisclass. There is hardly any work that requires absolutely no skill.A “ labourer ” is understood to mean one “ who does work requiringlittle skill,” and I take it that, although the work of a carriagepainter requires some skill, it does not require that special training,education, and experience that is necessary to constitute one askilled workman. In this view I think that an ordinary carriagepainter is no more than a labourer, and I affirm the conviction.
113 Q. B. D. 383.
* (1900) 1 Q. B. 736.
PIERIS v. HENDRIC SINNO