Zahrin bin Rabu v Ying Tai Plastic & Metal Manufacturing (S) Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: A P Rajah J
• Judgment Date: 27 May 1982
• Neutral Citation: [1982] SGHC 18
• Docket Number: Suit No 3857 of 1981
• Date: 27 May 1982
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1982
• Plaintiff Counsel: SB Shah and PT Seah (PT Seah & Co)
• Citation: [1982] SGHC 18
• Defendant Counsel: Karuppan Chettiar (Murphy & Dunbar)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Safety at work,Alleged application for compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act,Presumption against changing existing rights under common law,Employment Law,Whether defendant thereby precluded from claiming under common law,Statutory Interpretation,Statutes,Workmen's Compensation Act,Injury in the course of employment,Consolidating,s 33(1) & (2) Workmen's Compensation Act 1975

On 24 October 1964 the defendants, who carry on the business of manufacturing plastic products for the electronic industry, employed the plaintiff, Zahrin bin Rabu, born on 24 October 1964, sometime in January 1981 as a machine operator. He is illiterate both in Malay and English. On 23 May 1981 the plaintiff, in the course of and arising out of his employment met with an accident as a result of which he lost four fingers of his right hand. He reported the accident to his office, and was admitted to the Singapore General Hospital where he was treated for his injuries. Some time after he left the hospital and while at home he received a letter from the Commissioner of Labour which had enclosed in it a document similar to exh P2 and the document exh P3, which was then unfilled except for the figures 7353/81 inserted against `NWCR` and 25 May 1981 inserted against `Accident On`. He went to the Commissioner`s office some four or five days after receipt of the letter, but before he did so he returned to work with the defendants. He did not speak to any one at his employers` office about the letter. He says that when he went to the Commissioner`s office on 7 July 1981 he did not know what the contents of exh P2 and exh P3 were. He further says that at the office of the Commissioner no one interpreted or explained P2 or P3 to him and that he affixed his right thumb print to exh P3 in the belief that he was acknowledging the receipt of the Commissioner`s letter to him. Although he was closely cross-examined by counsel on this he was not shaken and there is no other evidence before me to the contrary. It is not in dispute that both the blue ink and rubber stamp insertions were carried out at the Commissioner`s office by one or more of its officers. No evidence was called to contradict the plaintiff although he had indicated to the defendants in his amended reply re-filed on 6 May 1982 the nature of his evidence. Exhibit P3, as it now stands, reads:

NWCR 7353/81

Commissioner for Labour

Accident on 25 May 1981

8 July 1981

I, Zahrin bin Rabu (I/C No: 1717481 I Date of Birth: 24 October 1964) residing at 3 Lorong Lihat, Singapore 2470 wish to claim compensation for injuries sustained in the above-mentioned accident under Workmen`s Compensation Act.

2 I wish to claim against the employer/employer`s insurer.

7 July 1981

(RTP of Zahrin bin Rabu)

The figures `25 May 1981` against the words `Accident on` were written in error. They should read `23 May 1981`.

The writ herein was issued on 14 October 1981. In para 5 of his amended defence the defendant pleads as follows:

5 On or about 7 July 1981, the plaintiff applied to the Commissioner for Labour for compensation under the provisions of the Workmen`s Compensation Act. By reason of s 33(1) of the Workmen`s Compensation Act 1975 the plaintiff is precluded from bringing any action for damages in a court against the defendants is respect of the injuries sustained by him.

The said paragraph is now before me for adjudication as a preliminary question of law.

On the evidence led before me and the arguments raised by both counsel I have to decide two issues: (1) whether the plaintiff by having appended his thumb print to exh P3 `has applied to the Commissioner for compensation under the provisions of this Act`, (2) if the answer to (1) is in the affirmative whether the plaintiff is precluded from bringing any action for damages in this Honourable Court.

Issue (1)

It is not in dispute that the plaintiff is unable to read, write or speak the English language. It is equally not in dispute that the plaintiff is unable to read or write the Malay language, hence his having to affix to exh P3 his right thumb print. It is not in dispute that it was one or more officers from the office of the Commissioner of Labour who wrote in all the words in ink and effected the rubber stamp insertions on exh P3.

I am satisfied that the plaintiff is completely illiterate and that unless someone had interpreted and explained the contents of exhs P2 and P3 to him in Malay he would not have known what the contents of exh P2 were. I am also satisfied that when the plaintiff arrived at the office of the Commissioner for Labour he was not aware of the contents of exhs P2 and P3. Bearing in mind that (1) both exhs P2 and P3 originated at the office of the Commissioner for Labour, (2) the plaintiff had no obligation to inform the Commissioner of Labour of the accident nor to make a claim therefore and (3) the plaintiff was a complete illiterate, I think the labour official...