023-NLR-NLR-V-53-SINNATHAMBY-Inspector-of-Labour-Appellant-and-JINASENA-Respondent.pdf
Sinnathamby r. Jinasena
1951Present : Basnayake J.SINNATHAMBY (Inspector of Labour), Appellant, andJINASENA. Respondent
S. C. 1,174—M. C. Colombo, 5,500
Wages Board Ordinance, No. 27 of 1941—Section 36—“ Trade
The trade contemplated in section 36 of the Wages Board Ordinance, No. 27of 1941, is the trade of the employer and not that of the worker.
A PPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court, Colombo.
T. S. Fernando, with A. Mahendrarajah, Crown Counsel, for theAttorney-General.
H. W. Jayewardene, with C. E. Jayewardene and Lyn Weerasekera, forthe accused respondent.
140
BASNAYAKE J.—Sinnathamby v. Jttuuena
January 26, 1951. Basnayakb J.—
The respondent to this appeal has been acquitted by the learnedMagistrate of the offence of failing to maintain and keep in the premisesin which he is carrying on business one or more registers in the prescribedform applicable to the Motor Transport Trade as specified in OaeetteNo. 9,481 of 2nd November, 1945.
It is admitted that the respondent is not engaged in the motor transport,trade, but it is submitted that the workers whom he employs to drivehis lorries are workers in the motor transport trade and that the employermust therefore keep a register in the form prescribed for that trade.
I am unable to assent to that proposition. Section 36 provides thatevery employer in any trade for which a Wages Board is establishedshall maintain and keep in the premises in which that trade is canned on,,one or more registers in the prescribed form showing—.
the name and sex of each worker employed by him, and in the'case of a worker who is a woman or under the age of twenty-one years the age of the worker,
(5) the class of work performed by each worker employed by him,
the wages paid to each such worker,
the number of hourB of work performed by each such worker,
the number of hours of overtime work performed by each such
worker,
(J) the dates on which wages are paid to each such worker,
(g) the holidays allowed to each such worker,
. (h) the amount of the maternity benefits paid to each such worker,
(t) such other particulars as may be prescribed by regulations orrequired by any decision of the Wages Board.
The trade contemplated in the section is the trade of the employerand not that of the worker. In the instant case the trade of the employeris the engineering trade and the trade of the worker is the motor transporttrade. The obligations imposed by section 36 in respect of an employerin the motor transport trade do not therefore fall on him. It is submittedby learned Crown Counsel that the words “ in any trade ” in section 36are wide enough to catch up not only the employer’s trade, but alsuthe worker’s trade. By themselves they are words of wide import buttheir meaning is controlled by the context in which they occur.
When the other provisions of the Ordinance are examined it becomesapparent that when the Ordinance, uses the words “ employer in anytrade ” it contemplates the employer’s trade and not the worker’s.Section 35 speaks of a worker in any trade, while section 37 speaks ofevery person engaged in any trade. The latter section alsomakes it clear that the obligation imposed thereby is imposed in respectof the trade of the employer and not that of the worker. When it comesto the payment of wages the Ordinance provides that the. employershall pay the minimum wages applicable to the worker’s trade (section21).
The acquittal of the respondent is therefore in my opinion right, andthe appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.