Daughter denied compensation
-but Appeal Court orders it fixed
ON the evening of August 22, 1958, Sookdeo Ramdeen, a punt captain, left his vessel at the La Penitence wharf and was on his way to purchase dinner for his men, when he was struck down and killed by a motorcycle. Ramdeen’s daughter, recognizing that her father was attached to the Ogle Company Limited, applied to the magistrate’s court for ‘workmen’s compensation’ for his death, but the East Demerara magistrate before whom the matter was tried, dismissed the application on the ground that the punt captain’s death  did not occur in the course of his employment.
This was despite the fact that the deceased had had his punt off-loaded and was waiting to load manure to take back to the estate when he was given money to purchase dinner for his men from the nearest restaurant.
But the Full Court of Appeal, constituted by Acting Chief Justice J. A. Luckhoo, and Justice Jailall, on October 28, 1960, who heard arguments on appeal, set aside the decision of the magistrate and ordered him to enter judgment for the applicant, and to determine the  amount and distribution of compensation to be awarded.
The Full Court allowed the appeal.
Attorney-at-law Mr. Derek C Jagan appeared for the appellant, while Queen’s Counsel, Mr. J. H.S. Elliot, represented the respondents.
The facts of the case disclosed that the appellant’s father, Sookdeo Ramdeen, was a workman employed by the respondent company  as a captain on one of their punts.
The company provided him and other workmen on the punt with money for the purchase of dinner for themselves.   While on his way to purchase dinner at the cake-shop nearest the wharf , Ramdeen was killed  in a motorcycle accident.  Ramdeen was not  forbidden by the terms of his employment to go himself for his dinner.
Delivering the judgment of the Full Court, the Chief Justice said: “This is an appeal from the decision of the magistrate of the East Demerara Judicial District  who dismissed a claim for compensation  brought by the appellant, the daughter of a deceased workman, Sookdeo Ramdeen, under the Workmen’s  Compensation Ordinance, Chapter III.
“The appellant claimed compensation on the ground that the deceased’s death was caused by an accident arising out of, and in the course of, his employment by the respondent Company. The deceased was employed as a punt captain on one of the appellant’s punts, and on the morning of August 22, 1958, took a load  of sugar  by punt  from Ogle Estate  to  La Penitence Wharf.
“He started out from Ogle at 6am, and reached La Penitence at 11am, where the sugar had to be discharged.   He was also in charge of another load of sugar, which had been brought  by an assistant from Ogle, that punt setting out from Ogle at 10am.
“It was part of the deceased’s duty to supervise the unloading  of the sugar.   After  sugar was unloaded, the punts had to be loaded  with manure  to be taken to Ogle,  It was only on the return  of the punts to Ogle  that the deceased  and the other workers  on the punts would have clocked out.
“The deceased and the other workers on the punt brought their lunch with them, but were not required nor expected to bring their dinner with them. It is the custom that while the respondent company’s punts are at La Penitence during  the evening,  money  would be  given  to the punt captains for the  purchase of dinner for themselves and the other workmen on the punts. There is no canteen provided at La Penitence by the Respondent Company for the supply of dinner to punt captains and their workmen.
“At about 7:30pm on the 22nd  of August, 1958, the deceased left the wharf for the purpose  of  buying diner  for himself and his workmen, and while on his way to do so  at a cake shop nearest  the wharf,  he was struck down  by a motorcycle  and suffered injuries  from which  he died on the following day.
“The question for determination is whether the accident arose out of, and in the course of, the deceased’s employment.  The magistrate took  the view  that it was unreasonable  to expect  a punt captain to perform  the duty of fetching meals for himself and those under him, and that the errand to buy meals could have been performed  by anyone under the deceased.  He also found  that it was never any part of the deceased’s  employment  to provide meals,  but the evidence of  Enam Alli, the  respondents’ field  clerk and acting factory overseer,  who was on the 22nd  of August , 1958, in charge of punt captains, said to the effect that in the case  of overtime,  the deceased  would be  given ‘dinner money’ for all the men in the punts.
“The magistrate rejected the evidence of Looknauth (who had, during 1956 and for some time after  the deceased’s death, acted as punt captain) to the effect that it was the duty of the punt captain to go for the dinner for his workmen.
“Enam Alli testified that the deceased had been told by him not to leave the sugar until it was discharged, and that he should send a workman to collect the meals.  But Alli also stated that none of the punt captains were ever expressly forbidden to buy meals for their workmen.     There is no evidence, however, that by 7:30pm, the sugar had not been completely discharged. The work at La Penitence would not cease until manure to be taken back to Ogle had been loaded.   Alli did not state that the deceased’s presence was required when manure was being loaded.
“Whether or not the deceased was under a duty to fetch the meals of his workmen,  he was entitled  to fetch from, or to eat his own dinner  at, any eating place  close by the wharf.  Was the deceased acting in the course of his employment when he went to get himself  a meal  at 7:30pm. ?  The deceased  was away from home since 5:30am, and would not have got home for some hours, having  to take his punt  all the way  back from La Penitence Wharf to Ogle Estate.
“It was necessary for him to have dinner to fit him for his work, and there was no obligation  cast upon him to send someone to fetch the dinner for him. But the fact that there is implied permission for a workman to leave  his employer’s  premises for dinner  does not necessarily justify a finding that his absence  in the course of the employment, or that an accident happening  to him during such absence,  is one arising  out of, or in the course of, his employment.”
The Chief Justice, in his judgment, referred to a number of cases which were not on all-fours with the current appeal.
Said he: “In the present case, the money for the deceased’s dinner was supplied, as was the custom, by the employers.    This fact distinguishes the present case from those to which reference has earlier been made.
“The provision of ‘dinner money’ was a term  of the deceased’s employment.   There is no proof that he had not completed  the unloading of the sugar he had transported from Ogle Estate to La Penitence, and therefore  there  was no proof  that he was in any way acting in disobedience of orders when he left to get  his dinner.  He was not forbidden by the terms of his employment to go himself for his dinner, and he was going by the normal route to the nearest eating place when  he was struck down.
“In our view, the deceased’s journey to the cake-shop arose out of, and in the course of, his  employment.
“The matter is remitted to the magistrate of the East Demerara  Judicial District to enter judgment  for the applicant,  and to determine the amount and distribution of the compensation to be awarded.
“The appeal is allowed; the order of the magistrate is set aside, with the abovementioned  directions,” the Full Court ruled.