067-NLR-NLR-V-77-CEYLON-WORKERS’-CONGRESS-Appellant-and-A.-V.-SUBRAMANIAM-PILLAI-and-another-R.pdf
SLR [MANE, J.—Coylon Workers' Congress v. Svbramaniam Pillai
336
Present: Sirimane, J., and Tittawella, J.
CEYLON WORKERS’ CONGRESS, Appellant, and A. V.SUBRAMANIAM PILLAI and another, Respondents
S.C. 115/71—Labour Tribunal Case No. 12/2658—2668
Industrial dispute—Labour Tribunal—Withdrawal of an applicationmade before it—Whether the application can be made againsubsequently.
When an application before a Labour Tribunal has been dismissedwith the consent of the parties, another application cannot be madesubsequently as between the same parties in respect of the samedispute.
A. PPEAL from an order of a Labour Tribunal.
K.Shinya, with Nihal Singaravelu, for the applicant-appellant.P. Thuraiappah, with S. Mahendran. for the employers-respon-
dents.
February 18, 1974. Sirimane, J.—
The Socialist Workers’ Congress originally made an applica-tion in respect of the 11 workers who have been dismissed—Labour Tribunal Case No. 12/2241-2251. When this case came onfor inquiry on the 9th February, 1970, the workers were repre-sented by their Union, the Socialist Workers’ Congress, and theparties agreed that the facts relating to all the 11 applications
330
SIRIMANE, J.—Ceylon Workers’ Congress v. Subramaniam Pillai
are the same and that they could be disposed of together. There-after an application was made to withdraw the 11 applications.This motion was allowed and the applications were dismissed.No appeal was taken from this order.
About 5 months later, that is on the 21st July, 1970, the CeylonWorkers’ Congress made the present application on behalf ofthe same 11 workmen. When this matter came up for inquirythe order in the earlier application was produced and it wassubmitted that in view of that order the present applicationcannot be maintained. The lawyers appearing for the partiesaddressed the President on the legal position and also referredto the replication filed by the workers where they had said thatthe original application was withdrawn without their know-ledge or consent. It was however not denied that the SocialistWorkers’ Congress continued to represent the said workers onthe date of the withdrawal, and it was also not denied that thesaid workers were in fact members of the said Socialist Workers’Congress on that date.
The President in his present order has considered the submis-sions made before him and he has referred to the fact that whencases come up for inquiry there is a discussion and an attemptis made to settle cases and in some cases settlements are arrivedat, in other cases the applications are withdrawn and in stillother cases evidence has to be led and an order made.
In view of these matters, since no attempt was made by theworkers to appeal against the order made on the 9th February,above referred to, and since all Presidents are under a dutyto make just and equitable orders, I do not think we would bewrong in assuming that the original President has, afterdiscussion, addressed his mind to the facts and permitted thewithdrawal of the 11 applications. His dismissal of theapplications under those circumstances, not having beenchallenged, must remain.
In these circumstances we are unable to say that the learnedPresident who heard the present application was wrong in theconclusion he arrived at, namely that there was already anorder in respect of these 11 workmen in the earlier applicationand that the present application should therefore fail.
We therefore dismiss the appeal. We do not make any orderas to the costs.
Tittaweixa, J.—I agree
Appeal dismissed.