Court dismissed appeal for failure to prove 'good reason' for unpaid holiday contributions via witness testimony.

[*911] 1973 March 13

(TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P., A. LOIZOU, MALACHTOS, JJ.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Entafiahos HjiMichael,

Appellant,

v.

The District Labour Officer and

Social Insurance Officer Nicosia,

Respondent.

(Criminal Appeal No.3395).

Annual Holidays with Pay Law, 1967 section 114.(1) (b) - Failure to pay without "good reason” the contributions payable under regulation 8 of the Annual Holidays with Pay Regulations, 1967 - Proof of conduct constituting "good reason" -· Standard of proof - No material giving rise to the defence of existence of "good reason” - Appeal dismissed.

A. Pantelides, for the Appellant.

N. Charalambous 5 Counsel of the Republic, with C. Kypridemos, for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

The judgment of the Court was delivered by:

TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P.: In this appeal the appellant [*912] complains that he was wrongly convicted on six counts, each of which charged him, under section l4(l)(b) of the Annual Holidays with Pay Law, 1967 (Law 8/67), with having failed without "good reason" to pay, during a particular period of time, the contributions payable by him under regulation 8 of the Annual Holidays With Pay Regulations, 1967, in respect of a person in his employment; all six counts related to the same employee of the appellant.

The defence of the appellant before the trial Court was that there existed good reason for his failure to pay the contributions, because the appellant, though he was in fact ignorant of the provisions of the relevant legislation, he had, actually, done for his employee in question more than he was obliged to do under such legislation, by arranging for him to go on leave, for about two or three weeks every year, to Kalopanayiotis, for medicinal baths and by paying him, each time, an amount of £15 - £25.

There is no dispute that if the appellant’s version is not a true one there can be no question of the appellant having a defence in the matter, irrespective of what interpretation might be given to the words "good reason" in the relevant legislative provision.

The employee of the appellant has denied the correctness of the appellant’s version; he testified that whatever money was given to him in relation to the days which he spent at Kalopanayiotis was deducted later from his wages; thus what the appellant tried to present as [*913] "holiday with pay" was a mere lending arrangement.

In a case of this nature it was up to the appellant to prove conduct on his part on which he could rely as constituting ’’good reason"; and the degree of certainty with which he had to establish it was not that required in a criminal case in order to prove guilt, hut the lesser one sufficient for the purposes of civil proceedings.

It has been complained by appellant’s counsel that the trial court failed to make a definite finding as to whether or not the appellant's version was true. We are of the view that through the trial judge did not make expressly such a finding, it is to be clearly derived from his judgment that having watched the demeanour, as witnesses, of both the appellant and his ex-employee,, he would not have been prepared to accept the appellant's evidence even on the balance of probabilities; therefore, on the record before us, there does not exist any material which could give rise to the defence of the existence of "good reason" not to pay the required contributions and, so, this appeal fails.

Appeal dismissed.