074-NLR-NLR-V-71-BRITISH-CEYLON-CORPORATION-LTD.-Petitioner-and-S.A.-WIJAYATILAKE-and-5-othe.pdf
337
H. N. G. FERNANDO, C.J.—British Ceylon Corporation Ltd.
v. Wijayatilake
1968 Present: H. N. G. Fernando, C.J., and Slrlmane, J.BRITISH CEYLON CORPORATION LTD., Petitioner, and
S.A. WUAYATILAKE and 6 others, Respondents
S. C. 340/64-—Application for Writs in the nature of a Writ ofCertiorari and Prohibition
Industrial Disputes Act—Disputes between an employer and different employees—Holding of a single arbitration proceeding/or the settlement of the disputes—Permissibility.
A single reference to one arbitrator of separate matters in dispute betweenthe same employer and different employees is permissible under the IndustrialDisputes Act if the separate disputes are likely to .Involve the .decision of. _ _substantially similar (albeit not identical) matters and the joint referencemakes for expedition and consistency. .
A PPLICATION for Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition.
H. V. Perera, Q.C., with S. J. Kadirgamar, Q.C., and DesmondFernando, for the Petitioner.
C. Ranganathan, Q.C., with A. Mahendrarajah and K. Sivanandan,for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents.
Cur. adv. vult.
August 28,1968. H. N. G. Fernando, C.J.—
This was an application for Writs of Certiorari and/or Prohibition inrespect of certain proceedings before an arbitrator to whom an industrial. dispute had been referred under the Industrial Disputes Act.
One of the grounds taken in the application was that the Minister hadno power to refer for arbitration a dispute between an employer and anindividual workman. Counsel could not rely on this ground in theargument before us because the present bench is bound by the decision ofthe majority of a bench of 7 Judges in Colombo Apothecaries Co. Ltd. v.E. A. Wijesooriya and four others
•v
Hence the only argument urged before us was that in this ease therewere 3 distinct disputes between an employer and 3 different employees,and that the Act does not authorise the holding of a single arbitrationproceeding for the settlement of distinct disputes. I must first say thatcases of these three employees do not appear to be distinct from each
» {1968) 70 N. L. B. 481..
28 -PP 006137 (98/08)
338
Simon Perera v. Jayatunga
other. In two cases, the stated reasons for the termination of serviceswas that the employees had made allegations against the General Managerand Accountant of the employer-Company ; and in the third case, thatthe employee had made allegations against the Sales Manager and otherexecutive members of the staff.
In any event, I cannot agree that a reference to one arbitrator ofseparate matters in dispute between a single employer and differentemployees is not authorised by the Act. It would be quite in order to refereach matter separately to the same arbitrator, who would. then holdspveral separate arbitration proceedings. A joint reference of all thematters mean that there will be a single proceeding, without the need torecord and assess the same evidence at different times, but the issues tobe considered (if indeed they are distinct) will each need a separatedecision. This situation is quite common in cases where a Union has adispute with one employer concerning distinct matters affecting hisemployees, and there is nothing in the Act which prevents the existenceof the same situation in a case where several employees are parties todisputes with the same employer. On the contrary, it seems to me thatwhere separate disputes are likely to involve the decision of substantiallysimilar (albeit not identical) matters, a single reference to one arbitratormust make for expedition and consistency. I regret to have to observeonce more that objections of this nature are in my opinion obstructiveand ill-advised.
The application is dismissed with costs fixed at Bs. 525 payable by thepetitioner jointly to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents.
Sibimane, J.—I agree.
Application dismissed.