099-NLR-NLR-V-02-MACKENZIE-v.-LEDA.pdf
( 231 )
MACKENZIE v.. LEDA.P. C., Avisawllla, 21,053.
Master and servant—Labourer under written contract of service—Quittingservice—Ordinance No. 13 of 1889, s. 7.
The provisions of section 7* of Ordinance No. 13 of 1989 applynot only to monthly labourers as defined by that Ordinance, butto those who, under written agreement, have contracted to servefor a longer time.
^HE facts of the case appear in the judgment.
Van Langenberg, for appellant.
Drieberg, for respondent.
10th November, 1896. Lawses, J.—
The accused was a kangany who had entered into a yrittencontract to serve the superintendent of Erracht estate for a termof three years from 20th December, 1895, in consideration of anadvance of money made by the superintendent, and it was speciallyagreed in that written contract that one month or more pay inevery three months should be deducted in lieu of the advance.On the .'st August the accused quitted service without previouswarning. When he was prosecuted under section 11 of OrdinanceNo. 11 of 1865, he pleaded that he had reasonable cause for quittingservice, because the monthly wages earned by him in May hadnot been paid before the end of- July. That this was the fact wasproved by the superintendent, who said three months’ wages weredue to the accused at the time he left the estate, and in answer tothe Magistrate the superintendent said the whole of May, June,and July wages were due to the accused when he left the estate.Now it is( quite clear that if the accused had been a monthlylabourer on a verbal contract he would not have been liable topunishment on leaving the estate when more than sixty days hadelapsed from the expiry of a month during which the wages wereearned. The Magistrate acquitted the accused. Against thatacquittal the Attorney-General has appealed. In appeal it wasurged that section 7 of Ordinance No. 13 of 1889 does not apply
1896.
October 26and
November 10,
* Section 7 of Ordinance No. 13 neglect of duty, if at the time ofof 1889 :—No labourer shall be such alleged offence the monthlyliable to punishment for neglecting ’» wages- earned by him shall notor refusing to work, or for quitting have been paid in full within theservice without leave or reasonable period specified in sub-section 1 ofcause, or for disobedience or for section 6.
1896.
Oejober 26and
November JO.' Lawbib, J.
( 232 )
,V
to servants un£er written contract. I am unable to read the Ordi-nance in that way. It is I think plain that the 11th section oi theprincipal Ordinance applies equally to monthly servants on verbalcontracts and to servants engaged on written contracts for periodslonger than a month; the latter equally with the former are punish-able if they quit the service of their employer without leave orreasonable cause before the end of his term of service or previouswarning as required by the 3rd clause of that Ordinance, or for suchlonger period as may be specially stipulated in his contract. Thenthe Ordinance No. 13 of 1889, section 4, provides “ that all the“ provisions—pains, penalties, &c.—enacted in the principal“ Ordinance, so far as they are applicable to monthly servants or“ their employers, shall extend to labourers under the Ordinance ,
“ No. 13 of 1889—every act or defaultwhich is made punish-
“ able by-the principal Ordinance if made or committed in respect“ of or in relation to monthly servants or their employers shall in“ the like manner be punishable if done or committed in respect of“ or in relation to labourers and employers under this Ordinance.”It is enacted by the 7th section of the Ordinance of 1889, “ that no“ labourer shall be liable to punishment for quitting service if at the“ time of such alleged offence the monthly wages earned by him“ shall not have been paid in full within sixty days from the“ expiration of the month during which such wages have been“ earned.” The definition of labourer in this Ordinance is. ' every“.labourer and kangany (commonly known as Indian coolies)“ employed on an estate in other than domestic labour.” I readthese enactments as making one law for the punishment of Indiancoolies quitting service, applicable alike to monthly labourers andto those who have contracted to serve for a longer time. The. punishment is the same, and the defences pleadable are the same.For these reasons I am of opinion that the accused was rightlyacquitted, and I affirm the order.