028-NLR-NLR-V-74-D.-C.-S.-WIJETUNGE-Appellant-and-G.-A.-A.-VIOLET-PERERA-and-another-Responden.pdf
M'ijetunye v. Perera
107
1971Present: Alles, J., and Thamotheraro, J.
C. S. WUETUNGE, Appellant, andG. A. A. VIOLET PERERA ancl another, Respondents
S.C. 21169 {Inly.)—D. C. Negombo, 1SG2/M
Conciliation Board—Civil dispute—Date of cause of action prior to appointment ofPanel of Conciliators—Jurisdiction of established Courts of law—ConciliationBoards Act, No. 10 of 193S, as amended by Act No. 12 of 1003, ss. 3, 4, 5, 6 (b),14.
103
ALLES, 0.— Wijelunge v. Pcrera
Whero a cause of action in a civil dispute in a Conciliation Board Area arisesat a timo when a Panel of Conciliators has not yet been appointed, it is open totho plaintiff to instituto action in a civil court in tho first instance, oven if a• Tanel of Conciliators is appointed prior to tho dato of tho plaint. In such acaso tho provisions of section 11 of tho Conciliation Boards Act as amonded byAct No. 12 of 1903 aro not applunblo.
Appeal from an order of the District Court, Negombo.
A. E. Theiarapperuma, for the defendant-appellant.
Gcmuim Seneviralne, for the plaintiff-respondent.
Cur. adv. vull.
February G, 1971. Alles, J.—
The only question at issue in this appeal is whether the proceedingsshould bo declared null and void on the ground that the plaintiffs didnot comply with the provisions of Section Id of tho Conciliation BoardsAct No. 10 of 1933 as amended by Act No. 12 of 1DG3 and obtaina certificate from the Conciliation Board of Pamunugama. The learnedDistrict Judge decided this issue.against tho defendant and held that hehad jurisdiction to hear the case. He thereafter continued to try thecase and at the conclusion of the trial delivered judgment in favourof the plaintiffs. The defendant has not appealed from the final order inthe ease.
The following facts arc admitted : The cause of action arose on 10thApril 19GG and proceedings were instituted in Court on 4tli September1907 in which the 1st plaintiff through her next friend the 2nd plaintiffclaimed damages in a sum of 11s. 10,000 from flic defendant for seduction.Pamunugama had been declared a Conciliation Board Area in 19GG buta Panel of Conciliators was only appointed eight months later on 5thJanuary 1967. There was therefore no Conciliation Board in existencewhen the cause of action arose. It was the submission of Counsel at thetrial and also at the hearing before us that the palintiffs should haveobtained a certificate under Section 1-1 in January 1907 before plaintwas filed. We are unable to agree with Counsel’s submission. Sections3, 4 and 5 of the Act make it abundantly clear (hat a Conciliation Boardonly exercises jurisdiction after a Panel of Conciliators is nominated, aChairman appointed ancl the Chairman selects from the Panel not lessthan three persons to constitute the Board. All these acts could not bedone when the cause of action arose. Under Section G (6) a ConciliationBoard has jurisdiction to entertain a civil dispute in respect of anymatter that may be a cause of action for the purpose of the institutionof an action in a civil court, but this is dependent on a Conciliation Boardbeing in existence at the time the dispute arose. At the time the causeof action arose the only relief available to the plaintiffs was recourse totlic established Courts of law. We arc therefore of the view that the
Thomas Singho v. Cornelia
100
contention of learned Counsel for the defendant fails and that the DistrictCourt had jurisdiction to entertain the plaint. The interlocutory appealis therefore dismissed with costs.
Since our order on this appeal does not affect the substantive rightsof the parties which have already been adjudicated upon by the learnedDistrict Judge we affirm J:.. .^ree of the learned Judge granting damagesto the plaintiffs as prayed for in their plaint.
Thamotjieram, J.—I agree.
Appeal dismissed.