012-NLR-NLR-V-74-K.-KARUNARATNE-Appellant-and-R.-D.-JACKOLIS-APPUHAMY-Respondent.pdf
46 FANDITA-GtJNAWARDENB, J.—Karunaratne v. Jackolis Appuhamy
1970Present : Pandita-Gunawardene, J.
K. KARUNARATNE, Appellant, and R. D. JACKOLIS APPUHAMY
Respondent
S. C. 69/69—L. T. 7/36402
Labour Tribunal—Whether application by workman for balance wages lies—IndustrialDisputes Act (Cap. 131), s. 31B (1)—Wages Boards Ordinance (Cap. 136),ss. 2 (a), 4, 61.
Section 31B (I) of tho Industrial Disputes Act provides as follows —
" 31B (1). A workman or a trado union on behalf of a workman who is amombor of that union, may moko an application in writing to a labourtribunal for roliof or rodross in rospoct of any of tho following matters :—
the termination of his services by his employor ;
tho question whothor any gratuity or other benefits nro duo to himfrom his omployor on termination of his services and tho amount of6uch gratuity and tho nature and oxtent of any such bonofits ;
such other mattors, relating to tho torms of employment, or thoconditions of labour, of a workman as may be proscribed.”
Held, that an application for tho recovery of bnkmco wages does not comewithin the purview of tho Section.
.Appeal from an order of a Labour Tribunal.
P. A. D. Samarasekera, for the respondent-appellant.
M. L. de Silva, with Justin Pereta, for the applicant-respondent.
Cur. adv. vull.
December IS, 1970. Pandita-Gunawaadene, J.—
The applicant who is respondent to this appeal was engaged as aBaker under the appellant in 19CG, at a salary of Rs. 100 per month;of this Rs. 100, the applicant permitted the appellant to keep backRs. 60, so that he may draw the amount collected as a lump sum ontermination of his services. It is the applicant’s case that on terminationof his services the appellant did not pay back the amount accumulatedwhich totalled Ra. 1,44.0.
The Tribunal made award in the applicant’s favour, directing thoappellant to deposit Rs. 1,440 which amount the applicant was authorisedto collect. The appeal is from this order of the Tribunal.
The application was made under Section 31B of the Industrial DisputesAct. It was contended for the appellant that the action for the recovery
PANEITA-GUNAWARDEXE, J.—Karunarolne v. Jackolis Apjjuhamy 47
of balance wages is outside the terras of Section 3IB of the Actr Section31B provides as follows :—
“ 31B (1) A workman or a trade union on behalf of a workman whois a member of that union, may make an application in writing to alabour tribunal for relief or redress in respect of any of the followingmatters :—
(а)the termination of his services by his employer ;
(б)the question whether any gratuity or other benefits are due tohim from his emplojer on termination of his services and the amountof such gratuitj' and the nature and extent of any such benefits ;
(c) such other matters, relating to the terms of employment, or theconditions of labour, of a workman as may be prescribed.”
It would seem to follow that the recovery of balance wages doesnot come within the purview of this Section.
Learned Counsel for the applicant however submitted that the words“gratuity or other benefits” are wide enough to cover a claim for balancewages; and that the term “ gratuity ” is so elastic or flexible as toinclude balance wages within its meaning.
“ Gratuity ”, I should think, connotes and implies a fixed moneypresent in recognition of services rendered—a bounty on retirement.It is a benefit obtained or granted for work done. I, therefore, findmyself unable to agree with learned Counsel for the applicant.
In the course of his argument, learned Counsel for the appellantinvited my attention to the Wages Boards Ordinance—hereinafterreferred to as the Ordinance—(Cap. 136, L. E. C.). I was referred toGazette Notification 11,095 of 22.3.1957, by virtue of which the provisionsof this Ordinance were declared to be applicable to the Baking Trade.
Under Section 2 (a) of this Ordinance the Emploj'er was requiredto pay “ the worker ” his wages without any deduction other than anauthorised deduction. A deduction from the wages such as in this casedoes not come •within the term “ an authorised deduction ”.
Such a deduction not being an authorised deduction was forbiddenunder Section 2 (a) to which reference has already been made.
The Ordinance also declares such a deduction to be a penal offencetriable in the Magistrate’s Court {vide Sections 4 and 61 of the Ordinance).On conviction of the Employer, repayment of this deduction to the workerwas also provided (vide Section 4 (2) of the Ordinance, as amended byOrdinance No. 27 of 1957).
The remedy open to the applicant was therefore to submit his’ complaintto the Commissioner of Labour for a charge to be laid against the appellantunder the relevant Section of the Ordinance. The applicant hasmistakenlj' or otherwise sought the wrong Foriim.
For these reasons I set aside the order of the Tribunal. The appealis allowed, but without costs.
Appeal allowed.