039-NLR-NLR-V-13-GOODEVE-v.-MADARAN-et-al.pdf
( 171 )
Present: Mr. Justice Middleton.
GOODEVE v. MADARAN et alP. CM Hatton, A.
(Granting of certificates under section 26 of Ordinance No.. 13 of 1889(amended by section 6 of Ordinance No. 9 of 1909)—No appeallies—Criminal Procedure Code, s* 338.
No appeal lies against an order of a Magistrate granting acertificate to the effect that a labourer had quitted the service ofhis employer on reasonable cause.
I
N this matter the Police Magistrate issued certificates to therespondents to the effect that they had quitted the-service of
their former employer (the appellant) on reasonable cause.
The employer appealed.
No appearance for appellant.
Bawa, for the respondents.—The appeal is out of time. The newLabour Ordinance does not provide for an appeal against an order
April 25,1910
( 172 )
April25,1910 of this nature. Under the Criminal Procedure Code no appeal liesOoodeve v against 411 order of this kind, as this is not a “ criminal case orMadman matter. ” See Gunasekera v. Jayaratna,1 King v- Mack.2
April 25, 1910. Middleton J.—
This is an appeal against an order made by a Magistrate undersection 26 of Ordinance No- 9 of 1909 granting to certain labourersunder the Ordinance certificates to the effect that they had quittedthe service of their employer on reasonable cause. It is not neces-sary for me to go into the facts connected w}th the obtainment ofthose certificates, as, so far as I can see, they are not material to thepoints raised in the case. The point raised by the learned counselfor the respondent is that no appeal lies. There is the furtherpoint taken by him that the appeal was not filed within time. Asregards this last point, it seems that the Magistrate made his orderon March 12, 1910, and that the appellant only filed his petition ofappeal against the order on April 1, 1910. Therefore, the appealwould be out of time, even if it lay under section 338 of the CriminalProcedure Code. There is no appearance here for the appellant,and on 'this point taken by counsel for the respondent I think it isclear that it is right. Under the Ordinance there appears to be nogeneral right of appeal from any order made, or any certificategranted under section 26. Under section 338 (1) of the CriminalProcedure Code it is laid down that, subject to the provisions ofthe last three sections, which certainly do not apply to this case,any person who shall be dissatisfied with any judgment or finalorder pronounced by any Police Court or District Court in a criminalcase or matter to which he is a party may prefer an appeal to theSupreme Court against such judgment for any error in law or infact. Now it seems to me clear that the order made here by thePolice Magistrate was not' either in a criminal case or matter.There was no criminal case or criminal matter pending at the time,and the order was not made in any such case. I had quoted tome the cases of Gunasekera v. Jayaratna1 and King v■ Mack.2•In the former case it was an appeal by a surety to a bail bond.There it was held that an appeal would lie, as the proceedings whichmight end in the imprisonment of the surety must be consideredas a criminal case or matter. In King v. Mack it was held that noappeal would lie from an order of the Police Magistrate undersection 419, which refers to the delivery of property regarding whichan offence has been committed- It is clear, therefore, I think, thaton both grounds which have ' been put forward this appeal mustfail, and it must be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
1(1905) 1. Bed. 154.
(1905) 1. Bed. 194.