158-NLR-NLR-V-47-WASTON-Appellant-and-RAMIAH-Respondent.pdf
462
WTJEYEWARDENE J.—Watson v. Ramiah.
1946Present: Wijeyewardene 3.
WATSON, Appellant, and RAMIAH, Respondent.
661—M. C. Hatton, 7,890.
Food Control Regulations—I>uty of Superintendent of an Estate to sell riceto all persons resident on the Estate—Meaning of the term “ resident
Where R, a Supervising Kangany on an estate, was dismissed from hispost but continued to remain on the estate and live with his wife whowas a labourer on the estate—
Held, that R was a person whom the Superintendent of the estatewas bound, under Regulation 4 (1) in Part II (Head E) of the FoodControl Regulations, to supply with rice.
PPEAL against a conviction from the Magistrate’s Court, Hatton.
A. Rajapakse, K.C. (with him S. P. W ij eye wider erne), for the accused,appellant.
M.M. Kumarakulasingham, for '.he complainant, respondent.
A. C. M. Ameer, C.C., as amicus curiae.
Cur. adv. wit.
October 15, 1946. Wijeyewardene J.—
The accused was charged with having refused to sell or issue suppliesof rice to Ramiah on December 15, 22 and 29, 1945, in breach of Regula-tion 4 (1) in Part II. (Head E) made under the Food Control Ordinanceand published in the Gazette No. 8,397 of September 27, 1938.
The Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced him to pp” afine of Rs. 150.
WUEYKWARDENB 3.—Watson v. Rami ah.
453
The accused has been the Superintendent of Ythanside estate, Kotagala,from August, 1942. Rami ah has been on that estate from about 1940.In September, 1945, the accused informed Ramiah and three others thathe could not employ them any longer as Supervising Kanganies but theycould do “ any other labourer’s work including pruning ”. The accusedtook this step as the Estate Agents desired that the number of SupervisingKanganies on the estate should be reduced. Though the other threeKanganies accepted the proposal made by the accused, Ramiah insistedthat he should be continued as Supervising Kangany.
On October 20, 1945, the accused decided not to give work to Ramiahunless he agreed to work as a labourer and Ramiah ceased to workfrom that day. However, the accused tried again to persuade Ramiahto work on the estate as a labourer and .as Ramiah persisted in his attitudethat he would not work except as a Supervising Kangany, the accuseddismissed him on November 20/ 1945, and forwarded his discharge certi-ficate and rice token card to the Deputy Controller of Labour. TheDeputy Controller of labour returned those documents to the accusedon December 21, 1945, as the question of Ramiah's dismissal was underconsideration in certain proceedings before the Deputy Controller.Ramiah continued to remain on the estate and live with his wife who wasa labourer on the estate.
The question that has to be decided is whether in these circumstancesRamiah was a person resident on the estate, to whom the accused wasbound under Regulation 4 (1) to supply rice on the dates .mentionedin the charge. That Regulation enacts :—
“ The Superintendent of every estate shall be the distributor ofsuch supplies to all persons resident on that estate and shall sell orissue such supplies to such persons in accordance with the provisionsof this Part. ”
Ramiah was living on the estate in December, 1945. The right of ahusband to live in the cooly line with his wife who is a labourer on theestate is recognised by section 23a of the Estate Labour (Indian)Ordinance which reads :—
“ Where, on any estate, housing accommodation is provided by theemployer for any labourer who is living with his or her spouse on thatestate, the employer shall provide a separate room for such labourerand his or her spouse and shall not compel them to share such roomwith any person other than a child of such labourer or of his or herspouse. ”
Moreover, no action has even been filed in Court by the accused toeject Ramiah from the estate. Regulation 4 (1) does not require that theperson “ resident ” on the estate should be a labourer on the estate.I may refer in this connection to the definition of “ Estate ” given inRegulation 4 in Part III. (Head F)—
“ * Estate ’ means any land of which ten or more acres are actuallycultivated and on which not less than forty persons are usually residentwhether or not such persons are actually employed on the land in anycapacity …. ”.
454WUEYEWARDENE j.—Buppiah v. 06 Bilva {Inspector of Police.)
I hold therefore that Ramiah was a person whom the accused wasbound to supply with rice in December, 1946.
In imposing a fine of its. 160 the learned Magistrate remarked that“ there was no bona fides in the action of the accused ” as he failed tofollow the advice given to him by the Deputy Commissioner of Labourwith regard to the supply of rice to Ramiah. On a careful considerationof all the aspects of the case I find it difficult to infer a lack of bona fideson the part of the accused from the mere fact that he did not agree withthe Deputy Controller of Labour on that point. The accused appearsto have thought that there was no such legal obligation to supply riceand foodstuffs to Ramiah after the dismissal, as he did not think aSuperintendent of an estate would be saddled with the burden of dis-tributing food supplies to persons whom he regarded as lawfully dismissedfrom the estate.
I do not think that this is a case which calls for more than a nominalfine.
I uphold the conviction but reduce the fine to Rs. 20.
Conviction upheld.
Sentence reduced.