Sri Lanka Law Reports
 1 Sri L.R.
v.GNANAM AND OTHERS
SUPREME COURTS. N. SILVA, CJ.,
EDUSSURIYA, J. ANDYAPA, J.
SC APPEAL NOS. 67/2001 AND 68/2001HC LTA NOS. 1444/97 AND 1453/97LT COLOMBO NO. 13/11590/8911 FEBRUARY, 2002
Industrial Dispute – Labour Tribunal order justifying the termination of services- Order for payment of compensation notwithstanding such termination.
Where the Labour Tribunal held that the termination of services of the appellant-workman (the workman) was justified in view of a series of lapses during a periodof 7 years and that his conduct was contemptuous of the management and fellfar short of the expected standard but granted compensation in a sum ofRs. 57,000-
The facts did not warrant the award of compensation to the workman.APPEAL from the judgment of the High Court.
Rohan Sahabandu for appellant.
D. S. Wijesinghe, PC with Neville Joseph and T. M. S. Nanayakkara forrespondents.
Alexander v. Gnanam and Others (S. N. Silva, CJ.)
February 11, 2002S. N. SILVA, CJ.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court dated 1
06. 1999. By that judgment the High Court affirmed the order ofthe Labour Tribunal that the termination of the appellants serviceswas justified. The High Court has in these circumstances set asidethe order of the Labour Tribunal granting the appellant a sum ofRs. 57,000 being the equivalent of one year's salary as compensation.The appellant has been granted leave to appeal on two questions.They are:
Did the High Court err in law in failing to enhance thecompensation awarded to the applicant by the Labour Tribunal,and in dismissing the applicant's appeal without reasons? io
Did the High Court err in law in setting aside, without reasons,the award of compensation made in favour of applicant by theLabour Tribunal?
It is to be noted that leave has not been granted by this Courton the question whether the termination of the appellant's servicesis justified. Accordingly, we have to consider this appeal on the basisthat the termination of the appellant's services is justified and thatfindings to this effect on matters of fact made by the Labour Tribunaland the High Court are correct. The limited issue before this Courtis whether assuming that the termination is justified, the appellant is 20nevertheless entitled to compensation.
The Labour Tribunal has carefully considered the evidence andhas made a series of findings against the appellant. It is clear thatthe appellant's services were not terminated in respect of a singleincident of misconduct. The termination is on the basis of a seriesof incidents of misconduct from 1982 up to 1988. These incidents
Sri Lanka Law Reports
 1 Sri L.R.
of misconduct are borne out by the documents that have beenproduced. The Labour Tribunal has accepted in its entirely the evi-dence as to the acts of misconduct. On this basis the Tribunal hascommented that the conduct of the appellant whilst in employment 3oand even when giving evidence, is "contemptuous” of the managementof the employer respondent company. Several incidents have beencited by the Tribunal to justify the conclusion that the conduct of theappellant throughout the period fell far short of the conduct expectedfrom an employee of his level. The High Court has affirmed thesefindings. In the circumstances we are confronted with the situationwhere –
the termination of employment is justified;
the termination is so justifiecf not with reference to a singleincident but with regard to a series of lapses that span a period 40of nearly 7 years;
the workman's conduct was contemptuous of the managementand it fell far short of the expected standard.
Such a situation does not in our view warrant the award ofcompensation to the workman who was at fault.
Accordingly, we see no basis to interfere with the judgment of theHigh Court. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
EDUSSURIYA, J. – I agree.
YAPA, J. – I agree.
ALEXANDER v. GNANAM AND OTHERS