HERAT, J.—Carolis Appuhamy v. Punchirala
1962Present * Herat, J.
H. A. CAROLIS APPUHAMY, Appellant, and K. PUNCHIRALA,
S. C. 34 of 1961—Industrial Dispute—LT j4'j3995
Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, No. GO of 1057—Appeal from order of LabourTribunal—‘ * Question of law
In an appeal under the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, No. 62 of1057—
Held, that the failuro of the Labour Tribunal to consider the version of thoappellant amounted to a breach of a legal requirement entitling tho appellantto appeal on a ground of law.
Appeal from an order of a Labour Tribunal.
Hanan Ismail, for Respondent-Appellant.
No appearance for Applicant-Respondent.
March 2G, 1962. Herat, J.—
In this case the appellant is the employer. He had gone on a tripto the shrine at ICataragama with his family in his lorry which wasdriven, by his chauffeur, the Respondent to this appeal. Accordingto the appellant the Respondent had become drunk with some intoxi-cating liquor and was driving at a reckless speed. Naturally, theappellant checked him, whereupon he reduced his speed to an absurdlylow rate of about 10 m.p.h. When the party halted to partake ofa meal the appellant had commented upon the conduct of the Respondentand taken the latter to task for what he had done. Thereupon theRespondent had thrown the switch keys of the vehicle and left the place.The appellant was forced, in the circumstances, to employ a temporarydriver to bring his lorry, himself and his family home.
The Respondent took action before the Labour Tribunal for wrongfuldismissal. The appellant gave evidence, but the learned Presidentof the Labour Tribunal does not seem to have accepted his evidence.I think the learned President has misdirected himself. Why shouldthis appellant, if he had no grounds to justify his action, go on thislong and arduous trip merely for the sake of picking a quarrel with Irisemplo3fee ? To my mind there is a ring of truth in the appellant’s case,which, if true, amply justified the appellant in instantaneously dismissingthe Respondent. I, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the orderof the President of the Labour Tribunal and dismiss the Respondent’3
fi. N. G. FERNANDO, J.—Attorney-General v. North Ceylon Builders
and Contractors Lid.
In my opinion the failure to consider the version of the appellantamounts to a breach of a legal requirement entitling the appellant toappeal on a ground of law. I grant the appeal. The costs of appealis fixed at Rs. 31*50.
Present: Weerasooriya, J., and H. N. G. Fernando, J.
THE ATTORNEY – GENERAL, Appellant, and THE NORTH CEYLONBUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS LTD., Respondent
S.C. 17—2). C. Anuradhapura, 4984
Contract—Wrongful interference by third party—Performance of contract thereby
prevented—Rights and liabilities of the parties.
Plaintiff company entered into a contract with the defendant (an IrrigationEngineer) on 4th June 1956 to transport and lay “ rip-rap ” (metal or stones)on a section of the bund of a tank before 31st August 1956. The value of thecontract was no leSB than Rs. 45,900. Clause 6 of the agreement provided thatthe defendant could cancel the agreement if the plaintiff failed to makereasonable progress with the work.
Although the defendant was bound under the contract to give possession of thesite to the plaintiff company to carry out its work, he was prevented from doingso on account of intimidation and wrongful interference by third parties. Conse-quently the Company was prevented from making any progress with the work.The defendant therefore, cancelled the contract on 26th July, 1956.
Held, that the defendant was entitled to terminate the contract on theground that no reasonable progress had been mode with the work, howeverunfortunate and reprehensible the causes of that situation were. Theintimidation and wrongful interference by third parties did not constituteprevention of performance of the contract on the part of the defend ant forwhom tho work was to be executed.
PEAL from a judgment of the District Court, Anuradhapura.
V. Tennekoon, Senior Crown Counsel, for the defendant-appellant.
No appearance for the plain tiff-respondent.
Our. adv. vult.
February 22,1960. H. N. G.. Fernando, J.—
In this action the Plaintiff Company successfully sued the Attorney-. General for damages for alleged breach of a contract between the Plaintiff-Company and the Irrigation Engineer, Padaviya, for the transport andjj laying;by the Company of *' rip-rap ” (metal or stones) on a section of the’ Padaviya Tank bund.
H. A. CAROLIS APPUHAMY, Appellant, and K. PUNCHIRALA, Respondent