002-SLLR-SLLR-1982-1-CHANDRASENA-AND-TWO-OTHERS-v.-NATIONAL-PAPER-CORPORATION-AND-TWO-OTHERS.pdf
SC Chandrasena v National Paper Corporation (Sharvananda. A. C. J.)19
CHANDRASENA AND TWO OTHERSv.
NATIONAL PAPER CORPORATION AND TWO OTHERSSUPREME COURT.
SHARVANANDA. A C J.. COLIN-THOME. J. AND S02A. J.
S.C. APPLICATION No 88/82NOVEMBER 1 1 AND 15. 1982.
Application to the Supreme Court under Article 126 of the Constitution-Refusal tocollect and remit trade union membership fees-Executive and administrative
action
The petitioners were employees ot the Embilipitiya Factory ol the National PaperCorporation (1 st respondent) and members of the local branch of the trade unbncalled the All Ceylon Corporation Employees Union. Union membership fees werecollected and remitted to the Treasurer of the Union by the 1st respondent until J«ly1982 but not thereafter. The petitioners attributed the refusal to collect these unbnfees to political motivation.
A preliminary objection that the alleged action of the 1 st respondent did not amountto executive or administrative action was upheld.
Cur. adv. vjlt.
APPLICATION under Article 126 of the Constitution.
Cases referred to
Wi/etunga v. Insurance Corporation (1984) 1 S L R. I.
Nimal Senanayake S.A.. with Miss S.M. Senaratne and Miss A. Telespha for 1-3Petitioners.
Sivarasa with A. P. Niles and Miss S. Devathasan for 1 st respondent.
Sun Ratnapala. Acting Senior State Counsel, lor Attorney-General (3rdrespondent).
November 29. 1982.
SHARVANANDA, A. C. J.The petitioners are members of a trade union called All CeylonCorporation Employees Union.
The 1st respondent is a public corporation duly incorporatedunder the provisions of the State Industrial Corporations Act No. 49of 1957. to carry on the industrial undertaking of manufacturingpaper and sponsoring the production of paper and paper products.
The petitioners are employees of the Embilipitiya Factory of therespondent corporation. They state they are actively involved .intrade union work. The petitioners further state that the BranchUnion of the petitioners' union had forwarded a list of persons whohave joined the said Union and that till July 1982, unionmembership fees of the-said members were remitted to the
20
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[1982] 1 SLR.
Treasurer of the petitioners’ union, but 1st respondent had for thepurpose of obstructing the lawful activities of the union deliberatelyomitted to make deductions from August .1982 and to forwardthem to the All Ceylon Corporation Employees Union. Thepetitioners allege that the Corporation was acting in concert withthe members of the Jatika Sevaka Sangamaya, a rival unionaffiliated to the U. N. P. and were attempting to demolish thestrength and influence of the union to which the petitioners belong.Petitioners further stated that the majority of the members of theirunion are members of the political sympathisers of JanathaVimukthi Peramuna. Petitioners complain that the failure to deductthe membership fees of the members of the All Ceylon CorporationEmployees Union members in the Embilipitiya Factory constitutepolitical discrimination against the said union. Petitioners state thatthe 1 st respondent corporation had infringed fundamental rights ofthe petitioners, in that the 1st respondent had discriminatedagainst the petitioners purely on their political opinion. Thepetitioners have applied to this court invoking the jurisdiction of thiscourt under Article 126 of the Constitution in respect of the allegedinfringement of their fundamental rights as set out in Article 12(2)of the Constitution and have applied for relief.
While denying discrimination and alleged infringement of theirfundamental rights complained of by the petitioners, the 1strespondent Union has taken the preliminary objection that thiscourt has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the matterreferred to in the petition did not amount to executive oradministrative action.
Since the preliminary objection raised in this case was of thesame tenor as that raised in a similar application against theInsurance Corporation of Sri Lanka in case No. 87/82, bothapplications were heard together.
For reasons set out in my judgment in 87/82, the preliminaryobjection raised by the 1st respondent is upheld and thisapplication is refused without costs.
COLIN-THOME, J.-l agree.
SOZA, J.-l agree.
Preliminary objection upheld and application dismissed.