052-NLR-NLR-V-74-CEYLON-ESTATES-OFFICERS’-UNION-Appellant-and-THE-SUPERINTENDENT-GALAHANWATTE-.pdf
Ceylon Estates Officers' Union V. Superintendent, Galahandaeoalte Estate
1S-
1971Present : Sirinnne, J.C’El'LOX ESTATES OFFICERS' UNION, Appellant, andTHE SUPERINTENDENT, C A i – A H AX DA WATTE ESTATE,TAi.AWAKALLE and another, Respondents.S’. G. 2031GS—L. T.jlOI7S3Industrial Disputes .-let [Cup. I HI)—Section 31 B (/) (6)—Contract oj service—Termination brought about by employee's conduct—Right oj employee to seekrc'.ie] ft cm a labour tribunal.
Whore nn employee has brought about the termination of his services by hisown conduct, section 31 H (l) (6) of tho Industrial Disputes Act permits a LabourTribunal to decide the question whether any gratuity or other boneGts are duoto tho otn|)103’eo from his employer.
S1RIMANE, J.—-Ceylon Estates Officers' Union r. Superintendent.
Gnhihnndaivatle Estate
is;
-/VpPEAL from an order of a Labour Tribunal.
N.Satyendra, for the applicant-appellant.
S. Sharcati and a, with S. C. Ckandrahasan, for the employers-respoudents.
March 14, 1971. Sipimaxe, J.—
The ease for tlie employee was that (lie employer had terminated hisservices. The President has held that there was no terminationby the cmjtloyer, but that (he employee himself ''' had vacated hisemployment ”, On a reading of the order, it is dear that his finding wasthat the employee by liis conduct severed the contract of service whichresulted in the terminatioh of his employment.
I agree with tlie submission made by counsel for the appellant, thatin these circumstances (he President could have acted under Section31 B (1) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (Chapter 131) and proceededto decide the question whether any gratuity or other benefits arc due tothe employee from his employer. The President had not. addressedhis mind to this question once he held that the termination was noteffected by the employer.
I would send the ease back to the Labour Tribunal to decide whetherthe employee is entitled to any' relief under Section 31 (B) (1) (6) of theIndustrial Disputes Act on the basis that lie himself has brought aboutthe termination of his services by his conduct. There will be no costs ofthis appeal.
Case sent back for further proceedings.