PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference
co.882
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
2 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE. LONDON
law."
46
"That complainants are kept at work for a period of time exceeding that fixed by
The tenour of the statements made by complainants on this head, corroborated as they are by the Protector's depositions, and the admission to him by the defendant, as well as by the showing of his witnesses, established beyond doubt the fact that the complainants were made to work, when at day labour, beyond the hours fixed by the
Statute.
The question, therefore, that presents itself is, whether this constitutes a breach of contract of so serious a nature as to warrant its being cancelled, or should a fine be inflicted as provided for by the Order in Council of 1838, cap. 4, sec. 8?
The Court, while admitting the breach of contract, is of opinion, one member dissenting, that inasmuch as the law gives the Magistrate the power of allowing compensation to the labourer for any breach of contract on the part of the master, under the Section of the Order in Council above cited, allows also the alternative of a fine being inflicted on the master, in lieu of such compensation not exceeding 101 sterling, that the Magistrate is not bound for a breach of the employer to cancel the labourer's engagement, but is only to do it when he sees fit and according to the evidence heard. Complainants were mostly employed at task work, which they generally finished, that, therefore, the grievance cannot be considered of so serious a nature.
The Court, therefore, is of opinion, one member dissenting, that it is not necessary to cancel the engagements of complainants with the defendant, a fine being sufficient in their opinion, to maintain the supremacy of the law, and, therefore, condemns the defendant in the maximum penalty of 101. sterling.
The Court now proceeds to the consideration of the fifth count, now second, viz.: "That the price of the tools, given to complainants to work with on the estate, is retained from their wages."
The defendant, in his statement to the Protector of Immigrants, admitted it had "long been the practice, on the estate, to retain from each man's wages the sum of 34. as a guarantee for the tools confided to him, but that the amount so deducted from cach man's pay was returned to him at the end of his engagement."
It is evident that in acting as he did, the defendant was not warranted in so doing by any law, and it cannot be allowed that any employer ez mero motu can deduct sums from his labourers' wages.
No doubt Indians, on the termination of their contract, are bound to return the tools given them to work with, such impliments belonging to their employer, and on their failing or being unable to do so, they may be made to pay, not the value of the tools when given to them, but a fair and reasonable price, allowing for the time they have been in use, and for wear.
We do not suppose that the sums so deducted were intended as a permanent retention by defentant, but such retention is not authorized by any law, and is, therefore, illegal.
It may be observed to this, that the complainants not objecting to this rule on the estate, the point cannot now be raised, but it must be borne in mind that there is no evidence before us that they consented to it, and is one of the causes of their complaining.
It is said it was "long the practice on the estate," but custom illegal in itself, cannot be made legal by continuing it.
Defendant states that the Sirdar Lutchman's gang had no money for tools cut from them, as their Sirdar became responsible for the tools being returned, and this statement is corroborated by the depositions of the witnesses Passement, Sham-Shür, Tookeram and Becharry. On the other hand, all the Indians of Lutchman's who
gang, are complainants, claim the money retained from their wages for tools, and their statements differ na to the amount. Unfortunately the Sirdar Lutchman, who has been called as a witness, has absconded and cannot be found, we have, therefore, only the individual and unsupported statements of these men on this point.
We have already said the practice of retaining money for tools from the men's wages is illegal.
We, therefore, condemn Mr. Poulin, the defendant, to repay to such of the complainants as are not of Lutchman's gang, the several sums so retained from them, adopting defendant's statement that it amounted only to 31. from each man, as such sum would more than cover the price of the ordinary tools supplied to labourers on a sugar estate.
6th count, now 3rd.
“That 1 dollar was cut from their wages to pay for a pump erected on the estate.”
47
The averment in this count as to 2 rupees having been cut from complainants" wages for a pump, is admitted by the defendant in the statement he made to the Protector but with this modification that it was done with complainants' consent, a pump having at their special request been put up in a well. The complainants deny this and say that they never asked defendant to erect a pump.
The complainants admit that before the pump was put up, they drew water from the well by means of a rope and a bucket. From this it appears that they had then water for themselves and animals, and it is very probable that they may have applied to defendant for a pump, in order to obtain water more easily from the well than by means of a winch and rope.
We are, therefore, inclined to give more credit to defendant's statement than to complainants' on this point. It will be borne in mind that the well was in the "Bois Rouge" camp, entirely inhabited by the Indian-labourers and an overseer or two, therefore, a pump could be of no benefit to defendant and the more so as he had to make good the difference of the cost price of the pump, amounting, as defendant states, to five hundred and odd dollars. The Indians who had been for many previous years on the estate never complained of the want of water, it is, therefore, fairly to be presumed, that if the complainants applied for it, they did so for their own con- venience.
We see nothing objectionable in the Indians or a certain number of them agreeing with their employer to give each a certain sum towards the pump for their own convenience, but we think it would have been less liable to contestation, had such subscription not been deducted from their wages. It has no longer the look of a voluntary subscription, but be that as it may, it does not interfere with the possibility of a contract or agreement being made by the Indians with their master for a pump, as
money they gave was their own.
the
Taking this view of it, we are of opinion that it is a question more for a Civil Court to decide than a special jurisdiction like this, as we cannot consider it in the light of a grievance. M. Poulin was bound to give them water, and he did so; at their request it was that a pump was provided. It is true that the pump remains in defen- dant's possession; and a Civil Court, no doubt, would direct its being sold, and the proceed divided pro rata between defendant and the Indians who subscribed towards it.
We are, therefore, of opinion that the charge in this count must be dismissed, as not coming within the jurisdiction of this Court.
The Court has now to deal with the 7th, now 4th count, in the complaint, viz. :- "That when they do not finish the task assigned to them for a day, a portion of their wages for that day is cut off."
In their several depositions, the complainants are unanimous as to this grievance, and they may justly consider it as such.
The system the defendant stated to the Protector as being practised on his estate, is one founded not only on a mistaken policy, but as being unjust, and not warranted by law.
case.
The planter, or what is worse, his subordinates, are both judge and jury in the The charge in this count would probably, in a Civil Court, be found to be vague and uncertain, inasmuch as no specific sum is claimed by each complainant under it; but in this special Court, and with the defendant's book, we have been able to ascertain this.
The defendant, no doubt considering that he was entitled to proceed thus, has put down with great regularity the sums cut from complainants' wages, for what is termed on the estate "malade-travail," or non-performance of work.
We then have had it in our power, so far as such entries have been made in the pay- book, to ascertain the sums deducted under this head from each man's wages. The Return A appended, which we have extracted from defendant's pay-book, shows the exact sums so retained for " malade-travail" since January of this year. We have not thought it necessary to go beyond that period, as the complainants only date their grievances since then.
On this list, by defendant's own showings, we find that fifty-seven of the com- plainants have been marked "malade-travail" at different times and occasions. As we have said, the grievance is a serious one, and seems to have given rise to much dissatis- faction amongst the Indian labourers.
Neither defendant nor his overscer deny the practice, but state openly how and on what basis it was carried on.
Defendant stated to the Protector, that "When a task which can be finished, is not