131-NLR-NLR-V-57-BELL-et-al-Appellants-and-F.-ARNOLDA-et-al-Respondents.pdf
1955Present : Basnayake, A.C.J., and Weerasooriya, J.BULL cf rJ., Appellants, and F. ARXOLDA cl nl., RespondentsS. C. 42—D. G. Colombo, 24,317
Contract—Employer ami employee—Provident Fund—domination of beneficiary.
A Provident Fund wna kept by an employer Company for tlio benefit of itsemployees. ' One of the Rules relating to it provided that on tho mnrringo of anemployee the nomination previously made by him would cease to bo valid andthat a fiesll nomination should be made by such employee which “ shall he dulyregistered Xo separate register of nominees was over maintained.
Held, that the failure to enter the second nomination in a separate registercould not invalidate such nomination.
PP10AL from n judgment of (he District Court. Colombo.
II. Pe.rera, Q.C., with If. A. Cl. da Ellen. M. L. da Silva and 7’. (7.Gitna-sekcra, for Defend;*ids-Appellants.
A E. Weerasoorin, Q.G., with E. S. Atnamxinghe, for Plniutiffs-Respondents.
October 7, 1955. Basxayake, A.C.J.—
Tire point that arises for determination on this appeal is whether MaoBow Bell, widow of Charles Isaa.c Boll (hereinafter referred to as Bell)who died on 2nd July, 1943, was his nominee for the purpose ofhis Provident Fund..
Bell was at the time of his dcatli and at all relevant times an employeeof Brodie & Company Limited which he joined in 1928. In that year thefirm started a Provident Fund for its employees. Bell, who was then abachelor, became a member of the Fund and it is not disputed that henominated his mother Jessie Bow Bell as his nominee, in terms of Rule 16of the Provident Fund Rules.
Bell married in November, 1947, and on his return to Ce3Tlon aboutJanuary, 194S, he obtained the Provident Fund Pass Book from Mr.Brodie, the Managing Director, and scored off the words “ Jessie Bell,mother ” from the space provided therein for the name of the nominee andsubstituted the words “ Mae Bow Bell, wife ”. In July of that year, Belldied leaving a sum of Rs. 23,269-11 to his credit in the Provident Fund.The money was paid to his widow as her name appeared in the Pass Bookas his nominee. The plaintiffs, the mother, sister and brother of Bell,claim that his nomination of liis widow is not valid and that the moneyshould be distributed as on a failure of nomination among the deceased'slawful heirs in ternis of Rule 17 of the Provident Fund Rules (hereinafterreferred to as the Rules). On that footing they claim one half of the moneyand allow the other half to the widow.
The learned District Judge lias held that the deceased’s nomination ofhis widow is not a valid nomination and that the money standing to his• credit should, in terms of Rule 17, go to his lawful heirs. We are unableto agree with him.
Rule 10 of the rules provides that on the marriage of an employee thenomination previously made by him shall cease to be valid and that afresh nomination shall be made by such employee which shall be dulyregistered..
We are of opinion that the entry Mae Bow Bell, wife ”, in Pass Book1)3, which was made by the deceased in the presence of the ManagingDirector and with his knowledge and consent almost immediately afterhis marriage, is a valid, fresh nomination for the purposes of Rule 115.
Counsel for the respondents strenuously argued that the nominationmade by the deceased was a change in the nomination and that it should interms of Rule 16 have been made by application to the Directors of theCompany, and that as there has_ been no such application there was nochange in ilie nomination. He also submitted that the failure to registerthe nomination was fatal.-.
It is common ground that no separate register of nominees was evermaintained. The failure to enter the nomination of Bell’s wife in aseparate register cannot invalidate his fresh nomination which was enteredin the Pass Book in the same way as the first nomination of his mother.The lawful heirs can only come in where there is no nominee and not onaccount of failure to register a nomination.
We therefore set aside the order of the learned District Judge and allowthe appeal with costs both here and below.
WEER.iSOortiYA, J.—I agree.
A pjieal allowc-tl.