006-NLR-NLR-V-71-K.-RAM-BANDA-Appellant-and-THE-RIVER-VALLEYS-DEVELOPMENT-BOARD-Respondent.pdf
Ram Banda v. River Valleys Development Boanl
25
Present: Weeramantry, J.
K.RAM BANDA, Appellant, and THE RIVER VALLEYSDEVELOPMENT BOARD, RespondentS. C. 31 fl966—Labour Tribunal Case 8(24773
Labour Tribunals—Rule-making jtowers oj Minister in regard to procedure—Scope—Regulation specifying < time limit for access to tributml—Invalidity—Conflictbetween a Regulation and a provision of the parent Act—Provision in Act givingthe Regulation the same efficacy “ as if contained in the Act "—Power of Courtsto declare the Regulation to be ultra vires—Principles governing jiulicial reviewof administrative legislation—Termination of a workman's services prior to thecreation of Labour Tribunals—Whether the workman can apply to a LabourTribunal for relief- -Retrospective operation of a statute -Contract —Distinctionbetween existing rights and vested rights–Courts Ordinance, a. 49 (1) {%) (.J)—Civil Appellate Rules 2, 4 (6)—Co-operative Societies Ordinance, s, 46 (.?)—Interpretation Ordinance, ss. 6 (3), 17 (1) (e)—Industrial Disputes Regulations.1858, Regulation 16—Industrial Disputes Act, as amended by Act 62 of 1857,ss. 31A (2), 31B (/), 31B (4), 31C U). 31D (/), 31D (3). 39 (1) (a), 39 (l) (6),39 {1) iff), 39 (1) (h), 40 (I) fo).
The Minister, purporting to act under the rule-making powers conferred onhim by certain sections of the Industrial Disputes Act, made Regulation 16of the Industrial Disputes Regulations, 1958. Regulation 16 provides that"every application under paragraph (o) or (6) of eection 31B(l)'of theIndustrial Disputes Act in respect of any workman shall be made within threemonths of the date of termination of the services of that workman Theappellant, who was a workman whose services were terminated by his employer(the respondent) in the year 1957, filed an application before a LabourTribunal on 14th August 1965, seeking relief against his dismissal. Hisapplication was rejected by tho Labour Tribunal on the ground that the dateof dismissal was more than throe months anterior to the application.
In the present appeal, it was contended on behalf of tho appellantthat Regulation 16 was ultra vires tho rule-making powers conferred on theMinister. On behalf of the respondent a new point was taken, namely, that atthe date of termination of the appellant’s services there was no LabourTribunal in existence to which application could be made for relief.
Held, that Regulation 16 is ultra vires the rule-making powers conferred on theMinister by sections 31A (2), 39 (1) (a), 39 (1) (6), 39 (1) {jf) and 39 (1) (A) of theIndustrial Disputes Act inasmuch as it in effect takes away from the workman,on the expiry of the stated period of three months, the right given to him by thelegislature to apply to a Labour Tribunal for relief, and to that extent nullifiesor repeals the principal enactment. The true Stature of the Regulation is oneof subetantive law and not merely of procedure. Section 39 (2) of the IndustrialDisputes Act which provides that every regulation made by the Minister shouldbe placed before Parliament for approval and that, on such approval andpublication in the Gazette, it shall be “ as valid and effectual as though it wereherein enacted ” does not confer validity on a regulation which is outside thescope of the enabling powers. The mere passage of such regulation throughParliament does not give it the imprimatur of the legislature in such a way as
LXXI—2
SO WEERAMANTRY, J.—Ram Baiula v. River Valleys Development Board
to remove it, through tho operation of section 39 (2), from the purview of thecourts. Tho duty of interpreting tho regulation and the parent Act in orderto soo whother tho former falls within the scope allowed by the latter devolveson tho courts alone.
Held further, that tho appellant had no right of access to a Labour Tribunalbecause his services were terminated prior in point of time to the date on whichPart TVA of the Industrial Disputes Act creating Labour Tribunals came intooperation. In such a case, there is no requirement of the existence of anindustrial dispute as a pro-requisito to a workman’s application. Part IVAof tho Industrial Disputes Act, though nominally an amendment, in fact broughtin for the first time a now scheme of tribunals empowered to grant relief of akind not onvisoged before. Tho Statute cannot apply retroactively to thetermination of a contract of sorvico which occurred prior to the introductionof the Act, for this would involve an interference with vested rights (as distinctfrom oxisting rights) for which there is neither express provision nornecessary implication in the Act.
PPEAL against an order of a Labour Tribunal.
Colvin R. de Silva, with R. Weerakoon, M. de S. Boralessa and M. B.Jayasinghe, for the Applicant-Appellant.
C. Ranganathan, Q.C., with S. J. Kadirgamar, Q.C., and S. Sharva-nanda, for the Employer-Respondent.
Cur. adv. vuti.
July 10,1968. Webbamantby, J.—
The appellant in this case filed an application before a Labour Tribunalon August 14th 1965 seeking relief against his dismissal by the respondent.He averred that his services were terminated in 1965, inasmuch as a finalappeal made by him to his employer was rejected in that year.
It was admitted, however, that the employee had not been working for1he employer after 1957 and upon the material placed before him thePresident of the Tribunal has found that the actual date of terminationwas in the year 1957 and not in the year 1965. The workman’s applicationwas hence rejected by the Labour Tribunal by its order dated 20thSeptember 1966 for the reason that the date of dismissal was more thanthree months anterior to the application, which was therefore out of time.The time within which applications for relief or redress must be made toLabour Tribunals is fixed by Regulation 16 made by the Minister ofLabour under section 39 of the Industrial Disputes Act as amended byAct 62 of 1957, and appearing in Gazette 11,688 of 2nd March 1959. Fromthis order the workman appeals.
WEERAMANTRY, J.—Ram Banda v. River Valleys Development Board 27
The only point taken in appeal by the appellant is that Regulation 16already referred to is ultra vires the powers conferred on the Minister, theappellant’s contention being that this regulation in effect takes awayfrom the workman a right given to him by the legislature, and to thatextent nullifies or repeals the principal enactment. It is urged thatinasmuch as the workman is on the expiry of the stated period deprived bythis rule of his right of access to the tribunal, the rule falls outside thelimited ambit of the Minister’s rule-making authority. Argument onthis question of law was very exhaustive, extending over several days,and I must record my appreciation of the assistance I have derived fromboth Counsel on this most important question.
Learned Counsel for the respondent while strenuously maintaining thatthe rule is in fact intra vires has taken the further point, not taken beforethe Tribunal, that at the date of termination there was no tribunal inexistence to which application could be made for relief.
I shall deal first with the question of ultra vires and thereafter considerthe effect on this application of the circumstance that the Tribunal cameinto existence after the termination of the appellant’s services.
In dealing with the question of ultra vires, we must first examine theterms in which the parent Act invests the Minister with his rule-makingpower.
The sections conferring these powers are sections 31A (2) and 39 (1) ofthe Act. Section 31A (2) states that regulations may be made prescribingthe manner in which applications under section 31B may be made to aLabour Tribunal. Section 39 (1) enables the Minister to make regulationsin respect of the several matters enumerated in its various subsections,those relevant for our consideration being the matters specified in sections39 (1) (a), 39 (1) (6), 39 (1) (ff) and 39 (1) (h).
It is submitted for the appellant that a regulation specifying a timelimit for access to the Tribunal does not come within the scope of any ofthese enabling provisions, while the respondent contends that more thanone of these enabling provisions would clothe the Minister with authorityto make such a rule.
It would appear that sections 39 (1) (a) and (6) do not amplify the areawithin which rules may be made but merely state that where matters arerequired by the Act to be prescribed or regulations are required or autho-rised to be made, the Minister may make them. The matters on whichsuch regulations may be made must therefore be sought in otherprovisions of the Act. These are section 31A (2) on the one hand, and, onthe other, the relevant subsections of section 39 (1), which are subsections39 (1) (ff) and 39 (1) (h). These provisions may be divided into two broadgroups—31A (2) and 39 (1) (ff) which deal with questions of * manner * or(procedure * and 39 (1) {h) which deals with matters necessary for carryingout the provisions of the Act or giving effect to its principles.
28 WEERAMANTHV, J.—Ram Banda v. River Valleys Development Board
I shall deal first with the question whether the rule we are nowconsidering is one relating to ‘ manner ’ or ‘ procedure ’ and so fallingwithin the scope of sections 31A (2) or 39 (1) (ff).
This phraseology necessitates an examination of the distinction betweenmatters procedural and matters substantive, a distinction which mustfirst be examined in the light of legal theory.
The distinction between substantive and procedural law is one of thetraditional classifications of jurisprudence but it is well recognised thata given rule may, depending on its context and its application, moveover from one department to the other or stand somewhat uncertainlyon the border between them. Indeed legal history shows that importantrules of purely substantive law have taken their origin in mattersprocedural.
There is no general principle which affords a test for deciding whethera given rule belongs to the realm of substantive law or to the realm ofprocedure, but it is important, to look to substance and real effect ratherthan to form in determining this question. The fact that a rule appearsin form to be procedural does not necessarily make it so, for what may beprocedural in appearance may well be substantive in effect. ThusSalmond 1 observes that “ although the distinction between substantivelaw and procedure is sharply drawn in theory, there are many rules ofprocedure, which, in their practical operation, are wholly or substantiallyequivalent to rules of substantive law. ” Rules relating to limitation areamong the categories cited by the same authority as being wholly orsubstantially equivalent to rules of substantive law.
We must therefore examine this particular rule in its actual operationwith a view to determining its true nature and whether even if it shouldappear to be procedural as contended for by the appellant, it is in factsubstantive.
It must be observed preliminarily that limitation in respect of aworkman’s rights of access to Labour Tribunals for relief or redress issomewhat different in its juristic nature from limitation operating in barof a litigant’s right to approach a court of law for a remedy. A litigantwho is barred by a rule of limitation from seeking redress in a courtof law is not left merely with an empty shell of right in his hands.Though debarred from his normal remedy in a court of law there is realcontent in the residue of his rights and these can assume substance in avariety of ways as for example when a prescribed debt is looked upon asgood consideration for a fresh contract in English Law or when underRoman-Dutch Law a prescribed debt which is paid cannot be claimed backon the ground of unjust enrichment.
On the other hand the imposition of a time bar upon the workman’sright of access to a tribunal operates so as to strike at the foundation ofthe statutory benefits accruing to him from that portion of the Industrial
1 Jurisprudence, 12th ed., p. 462.
WRERAMA'NTRT, J.—Bam Banda v. River Valley* Development Board 20
Disputes Act relating to Labour Tribunals. In other words, unlike thelitigant barred by limitation from an ordinary oourt of law, he retainsnot even the empty shell of those special rights which the Legislature hasgiven him but sees them vanish away in their totality the moment thetime bar springs into effect. Left with no access to the special tribunalcreated for him, he is destitute of all benefits conferred on him by thestatute and is thrown back simply upon the common law contract asadministered by the common law courts—that self-same subjection tothe letter of his covenant which these legislative provisions were designedto mitigate and soften.
The total deprivation of right which results bears more resemblance tothe operation of a rule of acquisitive prescription than of extinctiveprescription or limitation, for what is destroyed is the right itself and notthe remedy alone. In this sense the workman denuded of his right to reliefstands in much the same position as a person against whom a rule of-acquisitive prescription has run. It would ill accord with reality todescribe such a rule destroying the total content of a right as one of‘ manner ’ or * procedure
In support of the contention that these rules are procedural, theanalogy of the Civil Appellate Buies has been called in aid. The CivilAppellate Buies were made by the judges under a rule-making powerconferred on them by section 49 (1) of the Courts Ordinance. Thisprovision empowered the judges of the Supreme Court to frame, constituteand establish such general rules and orders of Court as to themshould seem meet for regulating inter alia the form and manner ofproceedings to be observed in the Supreme Court, the pleading practiceand procedure not specially provided for by the Civil Procedure Code,and in particular the mode of prosecuting appeals.
In terms of this rule-making power the Civil Appellate Buies wereframed containing certain provisions specifying limits of time, as forexample Buie 2 specifying the time for application for typewritten copiesand Buie (4) (6) specifying the time within which additional fees shouldhe paid for typewritten copies. Such limitations of time imposed underthe authority of enabling provisions relating to procedure are cited insupport of the time limit imposed by the Minister under his enablingpowers relating to procedure. I
I consider that the analogy of the Civil Appellate Rules does not holdfor the reason that there is no taking away thereby of any right given toan appellant but only the imposition of certain procedural requisites tobe complied with by a person choosing to assert the right of appeal givento him. This right of appeal, it must be remembered, is itself not anunqualified right but is limited as to time and hedged in by variousrequisites laid down by the legislature itself. Such a right will by the veryterms of its creation automatically die if not asserted within the life-spanset for it by the legislature.' A regulation in regard to the manner of its
H 17147 (9/88)
SO WEERAMANTRY, J.—Ram Banda v. River Valleys Development Board
assertion, in default of compliance with which it will not have beenproperly asserted, is a notion far removed from that of the impositionof a guillotine by Ministerial act upon the very right itself. There is noquestion therefore in regard to the Civil Appellate Buies, as there is inthe present case, of the total deprivation of a right—far less of one sounlimited in time and so original in content as that we are nowconsidering.
It is also pertinent to observe in regard to the right to appeal thatalthough the legislature itself has specified a limit of time for its exercise,it has also provided safeguards in the form of leave to appeal notwith-standing lapse of time and relief by way of revision, to avoid hardship inits operation. Safeguards of this type are totally denied to a workmandeprived by the Minister of access to the Tribunal. There is unmistak-ably in the latter case the extinction of a right and not a regulation of themanner of its exercise.
All these considerations point conclusively to the rule being one ofsubstantive law rather than of procedure.
It is also possible to examine these provisions in a narrower way. Thus■when section 31A (2) prescribes the manner in which an application maybe made to a tribunal, this provision may perhaps be interpreted in thenarrower sense that the manner therein referred to is the actual way inwhich rather than the time within which the application should be made.Again when section 39 (1) (ff) speaks of procedure to be observed by aLabour Tribunal in proceedings before that tribunal it can be construedto exclude procedure relating to those * pre-trial ’ stages when the matteris not yet before the Tribunal.
These constructions are of course not the only possible ones and it isperhaps permissible to read each of these subsections more liberally soas to avoid the restricted meaning indicated in the preceding paragraph,and contended for by the appellant.
However in case of doubt that construction should prevail which willconserve rather than take away the rights which the legislature has con-ferred in terms of the Act, and the restricted meaning referred to aboveshould be favoured, limiting as it does the scope of the power to whittledown those rights by regulation. It is also desirable in the interpretationof the terms in which delegated powers are conferred, to lean in favour ofthat construction which lessens rather than widens the ambit of thedelegated law-making power.
It is not of course necessary in the present case to rest the exclusion ofthese rules from those which the Minister is empowered to make, on thebasis merely of such rules of construction, for the larger consideration thatthe rule appears to be substantive rather than adjectival in its effectwould appear to exclude it from the ambit of the subsections we are nowconsidering.
WJSKRAMANTKY, J.—Ram Banda v. River Valley* Development Board 31
If, for the foregoing reasons, the rale we are considering pertains tosubstantive law rather than procedure, there would be difficulty inbringing it within the scope of sections 31A (2) and 39 (1) (Jf).
Furthermore, a practical view of the scope of such a rule of limitationpoints strongly to the necessity for its enactment by the legislatureitself. If, in the language of Viscount Dilhorne in United EngineeringWorkers' Union v. Devanayagaml, the circumstances set out in section31B (1) of the Act, form “ the gateway through which a workman mustpass to get his application before a tribunal ”, the Minister would bymere regulation be narrowing the gateway which the legislature hasso created, or, to be more apposite, be dosing it altogether, within suchtime as he may specify. A closure of the gateway so opened should beby act of the Legislature itself, and cannot be effected under the guise ofa rule relating to mere procedure.
It may further be observed that the group of sections relating to LabourTribunals is not altogether silent on questions of limitation of time forthe performance of particular acts, as where section 31D (3) lays down atime limit of fourteen days for the purpose of an appeal. Had it beenthe intention of the Legislature to limit the time within which a workmanshould apply to the Tribunal for relief or redress, the Legislature maywell be expected in this context to have imposed such a time limit aswell. Indeed the latter type of time limit is, as is observed in the nextsucceeding paragraphs, of a more fundamental nature than the merespecification of a time limit for appeal and if the one were deservingof regulation by the Legislature itself so would appear to be the other.
We must next consider whether the rule is necessary in terms of section39 (1) (A) for carrying out the provisions of the Act or giving effect toits principles. It may perhaps in this as in other fields of law bedesirable to have rules of limitation but it is doubtful that the impositionof such a rule is a sine qua non for carrying out such provisions or givingeffect to such principles. There is in regard to the right of access to atribunal no such compelling necessity for limiting time, as there is,for example, in regard to the performance of procedural steps in prose-cuting a time limited right of appeal. Buies regarding the latter havetheir justification both in good sense and in practical necessity for it isessential to the proper functioning of any tribunal however humble orexalted its place in the hierarchy of courts, that finality should attachto its orders. If these are sought to be questioned the steps involved inso doing must be expeditiously taken, leat the authority and effectivenessof such orders should suffer from lack of finality.
Different considerations apply in regard to the limitation of accessto a Tribunal for its authority remains unaffected by the absenoe ofsuch a rale. Tribunals are in no way disabled from carrying out theprovisions of the Act and giving effect to its principles if employees arenot debarred in this way, and in no view* will these objects be rendered
I 1*967) 69 N. L. B. 289 at 298.
32 WEERAM.AHTRY, J.—Bam Banda v. River Valleys Development Board
impossible of attainment. Stale claims most of course under any systembe discouraged but the Act is not devoid of means within itself for givingeffect to thiB desirable principle for it may well be that lapse of timewould be a factor taken into account by the President in deciding whatis * just and equitable * in the circumstances of a particular case.
Indeed the legislature has thought it fit not to curtail the discretionof the Tribunal in any way in making an award which it considers justand equitable. There is no compelling need against this backgroundto tie the hands of the Tribunal in regard to a matter which it is at libertyto take into account in its overall assessment of that which is just andequitable in the circumstances of the particular case.
The concession once made that the power exists to impose such a timebar, must lead also to a concession to the Minister of a wide and in effectuncontrolled discretion to determine the length of time which he considers .most appropriate for this purpose. If a situation should ensue of theright being taken away from the workman after the lapse of a periodsuch as a month or a week, the workman may well be without a meansof redress against what is in effect his deprivation by mere Ministerialdecree of a right which the supreme law-making authority has thoughtfit to give him.
It is not indeed the province of this Court, nor is it necessary for thedetermination of the legal question I am now considering, to expressany view on the adequacy of the three-month period the Minister haschosen to impose. It may however well be contended that this periodis all too short having regard in particular to the involved nature of thenegotiation that often ensues upon termination of services, a processin which the workman and the employer are by no means the only partiesinvolved. In the context of a tribunal freed to so large an extent of theshackles of ordinary law and procedure there is room for a plea that sostringent a rule of limitation seems strangely out of place. On theother hand, justification for such a rule may be sought in the very ampli-tude of the Tribunal’s powers, from subjection to which the employershould be free after the lapse of a period of time. This result shouldhowever ensue from an Act of the legislature and not from the will ofthe Minister.
The provisions of section 39 (1) (h) do not therefore in my view bringthe rule within the scope of the authority delegated to thg Minister.
It has been sought to attract validity to these regulations through anapplication of the provisions of the Interpretation Ordinance. Section17 (1) (e) of that Statute states that where any enactment confers poweron any authority to make rules, unless the contrary intention appears,all rules shall be published in the Gazette and shall have the force of lawas fully as if they had been enacted in an Ordinance or Act of Parliament.This provision cannot however confer validity on rules not made withinthe rule making power.
•' WEERAMAMTRY, J.—Ram Banda v. River Valleys Development Board S3
I must now deal with the submission that, even if the regulation lieoutside the scope of sections 31A (2); 39 (I) (a), 39 (1) (6), 39 (1) (//) or39 (1) (ft), it beoomes clothed with legal validity through the operation ofsection 39 (2). This subsection provides that any regulation made bythe Minister shall not have effect until it has been approved by theSenate and the House of Representatives and notification of such approvalis published in the Gazette, and that every regulation so approved shallbe * as valid and effectual as though it were herein enacted
It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that the requirement ofapproval by Parliament renders the regulations so approved tantamountto an Act of Parliament itself, the validity of which is not justiciableby the Courts. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that suchregulations are law because Parliament says they are law and that theydraw their validity not from the law-making power of the authoritywhich made them but from the fact of Parliamentary approval. I shallnow proceed to deal with these submissions.
A provision similar to section 39 (2) appears in section 49 (2) of theCourts Ordinance which requires rules made by the Judges to be laidbefore the Senate and the House of Representatives. If within 40days of. being so laid, any such rules are objected to by either Housethis subsection provides that they may be annulled. If, however, theyare not so annulled and are published in the Gazette, they are to comeinto force on publication in the Gazette, by virtue of subsection 3. Thecase of Abdul Coder v. Sittinisa1 would at first sight appear to lendsupport to the view that in terms of the Interpretation Ordinancesubmission to the Legislature would afford a sufficient answer to thechallenge of ultra vires. In that case the Court observed1 in regardto the argument of ultra vires which was there put forward, that the" provisions of section 14 (I) (e) of the Interpretation Ordinance thatall rules that have been submitted to the Legislature and have not beenannulled have upon publication in the Gazette ‘ the force of law as fullyas if they had bran enacted in the Ordinance ’ under which they arc madeis a sufficient answer to the argument of ultra vires '*.
It will be seen that the reason there given based on the Interpretation.Ordinance is inoorreot. Reference to submission to the legislature andthe absenoe of annulment would appear to have been taken not from thesection therein referred to of the Interpretation Ordinance bat fromsection 49 of the Courts. Ordinance. The Interpretation Ordinance byitself does not therefore clothe such rules with validity and does notcany any further the proposition that approval by Parliament rendersthe regulations valid and effectual. In the present case therefore theprovisions of the Interpretation Ordinance do not stand in the way of anargument of ultra vires, and such an argument must turn on theconstruction to be placed on section 39 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act
read by itself.
* (1931) 58 N. L. R. 536.
9-PP 006137 (98AM)
* ibid, atp. 549.
34WEERAMANTRY, J.—Ram Banda v. River Valleys Development Board
It is submitted for the respondent that in any event the word'regulation’ in section 39 (2) refers to any regulation made in thepurported exercise of powers under the Act whether such regulationbe in fact within or yrithout the terms of the power under which it ismade. It seems to me however that the word ‘ regulation ’ in section39 (2) necessarily refers back to the regulations already mentioned insection 39 (1).
Another reason urged for contending that Parliamentary approvalconfers validity even on regulations outside the scope of the enablingpowers was that Parliament, in so conferring its approval, would beinterpreting such regulation as being within the enabling powers whichit had conferred. However, I have elsewhere in this judgment referredto a principle which militates against this submission, namely thatinterpretation of the law is exclusively the province and function of theCourts and never that of Parliament, whose proper province and functionis not the interpretation of the laws but the making of them. Further-more, even if it be permissible in case of ambiguity in the constructionof the main statute, to look at rules made under its provisions, as anaid to an understanding of the statute, still, as Craies observes *, too muchstress cannot be rested upon the rules, inasmuch as they may be ques-tioned as being in excess of the powers of the subordinate body to whichParliament has delegated authority to make them. Indeed it is doubtfulwhether such legislation can be referred to at all for the purpose ofconstruing an expression in the Statute even in case of ambiguity 2.
Reverting now to the main argument that the regulation is “ as validand effectual ” as though contained in the main Act, because the Legis-lature says so, we must turn at the very outset to the observations ofthe House of Lords in the celebrated case of Institute of Patent Agentsv. Lockwood 3.
There were in this case certain very strong expressions of opinion byLord Herschell on the question whether such a provision rendered aregulation so passed not subject to the scrutiny of the courts. LordHerschell observed*:" They are to be ‘ of the same effect as if they
were contained in this Act’. My Lords, I have asked in vain for anyexplanation of the meaning of those words or any suggestion as to theeffect to be given to them if, notwithstanding that provision, the rulesare open to review and consideration by the courts. .. I own I feel verygreat difficulty in giving to this provision, that they 'shall be of the sameeffect as if they were contained in this Act’, any other meaning than this,that you shall for all purposes of construction or obligation or otherwisetreat them exactly as if they were in the Act. No doubt there mightbe some conflict between a rule and a provision of the Act. Well, thereis a conflict sometimes between two sections to be found in the same Act.You have to try and reconcile them as best you may. If you cannot,
1 Statute Law 6lh ed., p. 158.8 1894 A. O. 347.
* Halsbury, 3rd ed., vol. 36, p. 401.4 ibid, at p. 359.
WEERAMANTRY, J.—Ram Banda v. River Valleys Development Board 3Jr
you have to determine which is the leading provision and which thesubordinate provision, and which must give way to the other. That,would be so with regard to the enactment and with regard to rules whichare to be treated as if within the enactment. In that case probably theenactment itself would be treated'as the governing consideration andthe rule as subordinate to it. ” This strong expression of opinion givessuch words in the Act their literal meaning and endeavours to reconcileany inconsistency between regulations and the parent Act on the basisof a conflict which must be resolved in favour of the parent Act, a notionquite apart from the notion of ultra vires.'
Lord Herschell’s view was shared by Lord Watson and Lord Russellof Killowen. Lord Morris however differed so strongly as to expressthe view that it was not merely within the competence of courts ofjustice to consider whether the rules were ultra vires but that it wasalso their duty to do so. He considered the question of the rules beinglaid before both Houses to be a matter of mere precaution, not conferringany imprimatur upon them. It was only a provision affording anopportunity to a person choosing to take advantage of it, of movingthat they be annulled.
Whether the expressions of opinion by Lord Herschell and those whoconcurred in his view were necessary to the decision in Lockwood's caseis questionable, for the decision in fact rested on a point of procedure.Moreover, the case is one where the rules sought to be imposed were infact held not only by Lord Herschell but also by Lord Morris, whodissented, to be intra vires the general rules made by the Board of Trade.It cannot therefore be authority for the proposition—and indeed noauthority was in fact cited for the proposition—that a rule which is infact ultra vires the parent statute is given validity by the fact of a clausein the Act giving it the same efficacy “ as if contained in the Act ”;nor has a single instance been cited of a refusal by the Courts to apply the. vires teBt to rules made in such circumstances and falling outside thescope of the enabling power.
A clause to the effect that “ the order of the Minister when made shallhave effect as if enacted in this Act ” was indeed held in Minister ofHealth v. the King (on the prosecution of Taffe)1 not to preclude thecourts from calling in question an order of the Minister inconsistentwith the provisions of the Act. It must of course be observed that theTaffe case does not in principle contradict the rule enunciated in Lock-wood'8 case for the reason that the statute in the Taffe case did not requirethe order of the Minister to be placed before Parliament. In Taffe’s~case there was no parliamentary manner of dealing with the confirmationof a scheme proposed by the Minister while in Lockwood's case Parliamentitself was in control of the rules for forty days after they were passedand could have annulled them by motion to that effect. There hashence been no decisive rejection of the dicta in Lockwood’s case, whileat the same time it has never been held that such a clause would prevailover a rule which is in fact ultra vires.
• (1931) A.G.404(H.L.).
30 WEERAMANTRY, J.—Ram Banda v. Rimer Valleys Development Board
It is somewhat strange that so important a question should havepassed without affirmative judicial decision but this would indeedappear to be the position. To quote Halsbury, “ it was not uncommon inthe past for a statute conferring legislative powers to provide thatlegislation made under those powers should have effect or be of the sameforce or effect, as if enacted in the Statute itself; and it was muchcanvassed though never decided whether such a provision precludedthe courts from inquiring into the validity of legislation purporting tobe made under the powers in question ”l. So also Craies* describesthe actual position as being uncertain.
The case of The Pinikdhana Kahaduwa Co-operative Society Ltd. v.Herath3 presented an opportunity for the examination by court of arule made by the Minister of Food and Co-operative Undertakings interms of section 46 (3) of the Co-operative Societies Ordinance.
That statute too provided by section 46 (3) that no . rule shall haveeffect unless approved by the Senate and the House of Representativesand notification of such approval was published in the Gazette, and itfurther provided that every rule shall upon publication in the Gazette* ‘ be os valid and effectual as though it were herein enacted ”.
In this case the majority of the Court held that the rule inquestion was intra vires the rule-making powers granted by section 46 (3).Basnayake, C.J., however in a dissenting judgment took the view that therule in question was ultra vires and proceeded to consider the applicabilityto an ultra vires rule of the subsection giving rules the same force as ifthey had been contained in the Act, upon their passage through Parlia-ment and the necessary publication in the Gazette. He observed, afterreferring to Lockwood's case and Yaffe's case that Lockwood's casecannot be regarded as deciding that rules which are outside the scope of-the rule making power cannot be questioned in a court of law merelybecause the enabling statute has words to the effect that such rules shallbe valid and effectual. He also drew attention to the absence of anydecision of the English Courts holding that a rule outside the scope of theenabling power gains validity when the Act declares that they shall beas valid and effectual as if contained in the Act, and expressed the viewthat the court had power to declare a rule ultra vires despite such a clause.The view of Basnayake, C.J., has much to commend it both for its logicalapproach and for its clear assertion of judicial power in a sphereappropriate to its exercise.
In the absence then of authority on the subject, we must turn forguidance to the general principles and considerations governing Judicialreview of administrative legislation, a problem which in modem timeshas assumed much importance in the context of the growing danger bothhere and elsewhere of an exercise by administrative authorities of powersin exoess of those specifically conferred on them by Parliament.
1 Halsbury, 3rd. ed., vol. 36, p. 492.* Statute Law, 6th. ed., pp. 309-10.
» (1957)S9N.L.R.1*5
WEERAMANTRY, J.—Ram Banda v. River Valleys Development Board37
It becomes necessary to see firstly what practical considerationsnecessitate judicial vigilance in this matter, mid secondly what juridicalbasis exists for die exercise by the courts of such a power of scrutiny.
There has in Ceylon been, in particular during the period subsequentto the 103$ Revision of the Legislative Enactments, a large increase inthe volume of subsidiary legislation, the bulk of which has during theperiod 1038 to 1056 alone, exceeded the total volume of Buch legislationin the years before. The three volumes which sufficed in 1038 to containsuch legislation have had in 1056 to be replaced by seven of greater bulk;
. and these will assuredly prove insufficient in volume to accommodatewhat has been formulated since.
Maitland’s observation nearly a hundred years ago1 that England was“ becoming a much governed nation, governed by all manner of councils .and boards and officers, central and local, high and low, exercising thepowers which have been committed to them by modem statutes ” seemstherefore apposite also to this country and to this time; and in thiscontext all inroads made by such delegated authorities upon the provinceof the supreme law-making authority must be most closely watched.Any trespass on this preserve is fraught with attendant danger to thedoctrine of parliamentary supremacy, however well intentioned in itsorigin and well regulated in its exercise.*■
It is true parliamentary control is sought to be retained over this typeof legislation through a variety of me&ns which include both negativeregulation (subjecting them to annulment by Parliament within aspecified period) and affirmative resolution (requiring the instrument tobe laid before the House for a stated period and delaying its operationuntil expressly approved by resolution). But it becomes pertinent toinquire, if this be the sole ground of validity alleged, how effective suchclauses are as an instrument of control in cases where the authoritygranted by the enabling statute is exceeded by the functionary who soacts.
Parliament can scarcely be expected to have the time or the inclinationto give its detailed attention to the mass of rules so placed before it, andeven in eases where affirmative approval is required, parliamentaryscrutiny of such provisions cannot in any way be likened to the attentiona bill receives from both Houses.
It is indeed the undoubted right of a member to voice his oppositionto any regulation proposed, but it is doubtful that such a regulation canobtain the same full consideration as that given to a bill. Henoe whilein theory Parliament still reigns the supreme law giver, a large volume.of the law by which the subject is governed can well be pressed into formnot by the power of Parliament’s considered will but by the drive ofexecutive urgency.
1 Oonstitidiimal History o) England, p. 412.
38 WEERAMANTRY, J.—Ram Banda v. River Valleys Development Board
Against such a background, to view section 39 (2) as a cloak of validitywhich may be thrown around rules which in fact are ultra vires wouldbe to erode rather than protect the supreme authority of Parliament.Regulations clearly outside the scope of the enabling powers and passingunnoticed in the heat and pressure of parliamentary business may then' survive unquestioned and unquestionable ; and functionaries manifestly-exceeding their powers would thereby be able to arrogate to themselvesa de facto legislative authority which de jure belongs to parliamentalone.
For the foregoing reasons I cannot subscribe to the view that the merepassage of a regulation through Parliament gives it the imprimatur of thelegislature in such a way as to remove it from the purview of the courtsthrough the operation of section 39 (2).
The duty of interpreting the regulation and the parent Act in order tosee whether the former falls within the scope allowed by the latterdevolves on the courts alone. It is a principle that has often been asserted,and bears reassertion, that just as the making of the laws is exclusivelythe province and function of Parliament, so is their interpretation theprovince and function exclusively of the courts. In the total andexclusive commitment of this function to the care of the courts,tradition, law and reason all combine ; nor is any organ of the State sowell equipped in fact1 or so amply authorised by law to discharge thisfunction. It is self-evident that Parliament is not nor ever can be theauthority for the interpretation of the laws which it enacts.
In the view stated above, the courts as the sole interpreters of the laware committed to the duty, despite section 39 (2), to consider whether aregulation travels beyond the powers conferred on its maker. Any otherview of the law seems fraught with danger to the subject for it wouldfree the acts of creatures of the legislature from the checks andscrutinies which alone are effective in ensuring that the delegatedauthority while operating to the uttermost limits of its powers does nottravel beyond.
I thus reach the conclusion that it is within the competence of thiBcourt to subject such regulations to the ultra vires test despite section39 (2) and for the reasons earlier set out, I hold the rule in question tobe ultra vires.
I turn now to the question whether despite the rule being ultra viresand the workman therefore having a right of access to the Tribunal evenafter the lapse of three months, he has no right to relief inasmuch as thetermination of his services was prior in point of time to the date on whichthe Act came into operation. The termination was in the year 1957
1 S. A. de Smith, Judicial Review of 'A.lm. Action, p. 7.
WKE RAMAN TRY, J.—Ram Banda v. River Valleys Development Board 30
whereas Part IVA of the Statute was enacted in its entirety on 31stDecember 1957, that is in any event after the termination of theworkman’s services.
Mr. Kanganathan for the respondent submits that this is an alternativeground on which the President of the Tribunal could have rejected theapplication, for the Statute cannot be given a retrospective effect enablingworkmen whose services were terminated prior to 31st December 1957,to have recourse to Labour Tribunals. Inasmuch as all legislation mustbe presumed to be prospective rather than retrospective in its operation,Part IV A of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot, in the respondent’ssubmission, compel an employer whose liability at the time of termina-tion was confined within the four corners of the contract to submitto a new tribunal exercising a new jurisdiction and using a new yardstickof liability—that which is “just and equitable ” as opposed to thatwhich the contract determines.-
The question for consideration, then, is whether on a termination of aworkman’s services there is a vesting of the rights of parties upon thebasis of the contract in such a sense that no questions connected withor flowing from the contract can thereafter except by express enactmentor necessary implication be made justiciable by other Tribunals thanthe courts or by other standards than those afforded by the contractitself.
The appellant submits that questions of retrospective operation do notarise in the present case on the basis that the requisite for access to theTribunal is an industrial dispute and not termination simpliciter andit is submitted that although the termination may have preceded theAct the industrial dispute resulting from it arose subsequently.
I shall deal first with this submission and in the light of my conclusionson this matter consider the applicability to this case of the principlesrelating to retrospective operation of statutes.
If termination simpliciter be the requisite for access to the tribunalthen such requisite would on the facts of this case have occurred priorto the enactment of Section 31A (2) and could therefore only be.caughtup retrospectively whereas if an industrial dispute be the requisite, suchindustrial dispute may well have occurred subsequent to 31st December1957, the day on which Part IVA came into operation, although theactual date of termination preceded this date. In the latter event theseprovisions could, operating prospectively, take in such a dispute.
As already observed, the provision of law under which the workmanhas sought relief in this case is section 3IB (1). This section providesthat “ a workman or a trade union on behalf of a workman who is a
40WEERAMANTRY, J.—Ram Honda v. River Valleys Development Board
member of that union may make an application in writing to a labourtribunal for relief or redress in respect of any of the following matters:—
(а)the termination of his services by his employer ;
(б)the question whether any gratuity or other benefits are due from
his employer on termination of his services and the amount ofsuch gratuity 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.”
Sub-section (c) is inapplicable to the present application and in anyevent no matters have been prescribed in terms of this sub-section. Theapplication therefore hinges on the interpretation to be given tosub-sections (a) and (6).
Both these sub-sections appear to require or pre-suppose a terminationof services. Is that, however, the only requisite, or should there furtherbe an industrial dispute in existence in order to open the doors of thetribunal to a workman ?
Dr. de Silva’s submission is that although the word “termination”occurs in sections 31B (1) (a) and (6), it is nevertheless only a dispute,that is to say an industrial dispute, which can bring a workman beforethe tribunal for redress. He contends that a dispute may emerge evenyears after the termination, for a continuous process of negotiationensues between employer and employee, the latter perhaps acting inconsultation with his trade union.
In other words it is submitted that such a dispute is a liveand continuous thing ever altering in scope and content till it oomes to ahead at the moment of making application to the tribunal. Inasmuch asone cannot therefore fix the point of time at which a matter crystallisesinto .a dispute, termination does not, to summarise this submission,furnish a test of the time of accrual of the right to invoke the powersof a Labour Tribunal. So long as such dispute is established itmatters little that the factual basis on which it rests stretches out intothe past.
In support of this view reliance is plaoed on the explanation by thePrivy Council of the scope and functions of Labour Tribunals in therecent case of United Engineering Workers* Union v. Devanayagam1.It was there observed that it would be wrong to search for a cause ofaction before a Labour Tribunal in the sense in which one looks forsuch a pre-requisite to action in a Court of Law. No doubt, one doesnot have to search for a cause of action in the sense in which such arequirement exists as a pre-requisite to aooess to a Court of Law; andno doubt also these tribunals operate, as the appellant points out, in a
» (1967)69 N.L.B.2S4.
WEERAMANTRY, J.—Ram Banda v. River Valleys Development Board 41
■’S
setting entirely different from that in which courts of law function, fortiie tribunal’s powers are not confined within the framework of thecontract: But this does not justify us in reading into the plain termsof section 31B, provisions whioh are not in fact contained therein. Itseems to me upon a plain reading of that section, that the peg upon whichthe workman must hang his claim to approach the Tribunal is not anindustrial dispute but whatever is specified in the respective sub-sectionsof section 31B (1). In so far as sub-sections (a) and (6) are concerned,this peg would appear to be the termination of services ; and immediatelyupon such termination there would accrue to the workman a right ofaccess to the Tribunal. The section does not upon any reading requirethat the termination should as a condition o$ access to the Tribunalmature into an industrial dispute if indeed that were possible in law.
I am unable therefore to read into section 31B (1) anything more thanthe legislature has put into it and nowhere do I find either in the schemeof the Act or in the terms of that section, any requirement of the existenceof an industrial dispute as a pre-requisite to a workman’s application.Having thus reached the conclusion that the event entitling the workmanto approach the Tribunal has on the facts of the present case occurredprior to the creation of Labour Tribunals, 1 must next examine whetherthe Statute can operate retrospectively in regard to this terminationwithout violence to the principle that vested rights should not beinterfered with by later legislation;
Before I do so I must deal with a preliminary submission by learnedcounsel for the appellant who contends that We are here not concernedwith the question whether rights are prospective or retrospective butonly with the conciliatoiy functions of a settling or mediating institution.The functions of these institutions, according to the preamble to theStatute, are the prevention, investigation and settlement of industrialdisputes and the decision of disputes is not among these functions. Thismediating institution it is submitted is not circumscribed in its powers ofmediation by the circumstance that at the time of termination it was notin being. It is its duty, unfettered by traditional concepts of legal rightsand liabilities, to give effect to those concepts of social justice whichmust weigh in equity and fairness, though not in strict law, in alldecisions between employer and employee. Legal rights and dutiesin the strict sense are according to this submission left unaffected.
It would seem however that whatever be the true conception of thefunctions of these tribunals, the relief or redress which they may granttakes the shape of orders binding on the employer. The Labour Tribunalis empowered by section 31G (1) to make an order which appears to itto be just and equitable and this order becomes final and not questionableby any court in terms of section 31 (1). Furthermore, there is a duty ofcompliance with this order imposed upon the employer in terms inter aliaof section 40 (1) (g) which makes it a punishable offence for an employerto fail to oomply with any order made in respect of him by a Labour
-42 WEERAMANTRY, J.—Ram Banda v. River Valleys Development Board
Tribunal. Such orders may in the result affect adversely that legalposition stemming from the contract alone, in which the employer wouldbut for these provisions have found himself at the date of termination.It would be incorrect to say therefore that legal rights and duties asbetween employers and employees are left unaffected. The mattercannot be more clearly put than to refer to the phraseology of section31 B (4) which expressly permits a tribunal to grant relief or redress to anapplicant “ notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any contractof service between him and the employer ”.
The extent to which the creation of Labour Tribunals makes an impacton the legal position of the employer is best understood in the light of thelegislation which had till then been enacted in respect of disputes betweenemployers and employees.
The forerunner of the present legislation relating to the conciliationbetween employer and employee was the Industrial Disputes Ordinance,No. 3 of 1931, an Ordinance providing for the investigation and settle-ment of industrial disputes. This Ordinance provided for the appoint-ment by the Governor of commissions to inquire into matters relating toindustry which might be referred to it by the Governor. The Controllerof Labour could also take certain steps towards effecting a settlementand it was the duty of Conciliation Boards to bring about a settlement of.disputes referred to them. Where settlements were so arrived at, thesettlements were binding, but if not arrived at, the proposals for settle-ment recommended by the Board were published in the Gazette and anyparty failing to make a statement rejecting the settlement was deemedto have accepted such settlement. However a right of repudiationwas expressly conferred, and there was thus no imposition of such termsupon an unwilling party.
There thereafter came upon the statute book the Industrial DisputesAct, No. 43 of 1950, which was “ an Act to provide for the prevention,investigation and settlement of industrial disputes, and for mattersconnected therewith or incidental thereto ”. This Act provided forvoluntary and compulsory arbitration in regard to industrial disputes.Reference to an Industrial Court was not a right given to an aggrievedworkman but an act performable by the Minister in the exercise of adiscretion expressly conferred on him. Reference to arbitration wasentirely dependent on the consent of parties.1
The resulting position then was that subject only to the Minister’sright, in his discretion, to refer a matter to an Industrial Court, theemployer was entitled to stand upon the terms of the contract.
His right so to insist upon the common law incidents of the contractremained unaffected until the amending Act No. 62 of 1957 brought aboutthe creation of Labour Tribunals. Section 31B (1) of this Act for the
1 Section 3 (1) (d).
WEERAMANTRY, J.—Ram Banda v. River Valleys Development Board 43. _
■
first time entitled an individual workman to approach a tribunal otherthan the normal courts of law for relief or redress. These tribunals were^as already observed, empowered to make orders binding upon theemployer, and exercise a power over him irrespective of his consent,thus subjecting him even against his will to liabilities not taking theirorigin in the contract.
We must therefore approach the problem of retrospective operationon the basis that the provision of law we are considering is one which had-a real impact on legal rights and duties. Could this legislation whichconfers new rights on a workman upon the termination of his servicesoperate retrospectively in respect of a past termination ?
In A kilandanayaki v. Sothinagaratnam1 the court was consideringan amendment of the Matrimonial Bights and Inheritance Ordinancechanging the definition of thediathettam prevailing under OrdinanceNo. 9 of 1911. It was held that no retrospective effect could in theabsence of express words or necessary implication be given to new lawswhich affect rights acquired under the former law. These latter wereheld therefore to remain undisturbed by the amendment.
Section 6 (3) of the Interpretation Ordinance was there described byGratiaen J. as giving statutory recognition to the rule of judicialinterpretation adopted in all civilised countries that the courts shouldnot lightly assume an intent on the part of Parliament to introducelegislation prejudicially affecting vested rights which have already beenacquired.
This and other judgments of this court were cited in support of theprinciple that there is a presumption against an interferencewith vested rights, but I would prefer not to base this judgment on themas they are cases of amending legislation and thus fall within the scope ofsection 6 (3) of the Interpretation Ordinance.
Port IVA of the Industrial Disputes Act, though nominally anamendment, in fact brought in for the first time a new scheme oftribunals empowered to grant relief of a kind not envisaged before. Itwould therefore be preferable to rest a discussion of this matter on thegeneral principles of interpretation rather than on Section 6 (3) of theInterpretation Ordinance.
The general principle is of course that statutes are presumed not tooperate retrospectively so as to. affect vested rights, and that courtswould always lean in favour of that interpretation which leaves vested
rights unaffected s.
* (1952 53 N. L. R. 385 vD. B.).
* Crates Statute Law, 6th ed., p. 397.
44 WEERAMANTRY, J.—Bam Banda v. Biver Valleys Development Board
While this proposition is not disputed on behalf of the appellant thepoint is taken that a distinction must be drawn between vested rightsand existing rights. It is only in respect of vested rights that there isno presumption that statutes are not retrospective1. It is correctlysubmitted that most pieces of legislation in fact do interfere with existingrights and that it is not the policy of the law to lean against suchinterference.
This submission necessitates an examination of the distinction betweenexisting rights and vested rights for the purpose of the rule againstretrospective operation.
The word ‘vested’ would appear to have a legal meaning which isprimarily understood as being “ free from all contingencies”2 and thedistinction between such a right and an existing right has been wellexplained by Buckley L.J. in West v. Owynne3 in these terms: “ Supposethat by contract between A and B there is in an event to arise a debtfrom B to A, and suppose that an Act is passed which provides that inrespect of such a contract no debt shall arise. As an illustration takethe case of a contract to pay money upon the event of a wager or the caseof an insurance against a risk which an Act subsequently declares tobe one in respect of which the assured shall not have an insurable interest.In such a case, if the event has happened before the Act is passed, so thatat the moment when the Act comes into operation a debt exists, aninvestigation whether the transaction is struck at by the Act involves
an investigation whether the Act is retrospectivebut if at the date
of the passing of the Act the event has not happened, then the operationof the Act in forbidding the subsequent coining into existence of a debtis not a retrospective operation, but is an interference with existingrights in that it destroys A’s right in an event to become a creditor of B ”.It was held that there was nothing in the language of the new enactmentexcluding from its scope contracts entered into prior to its date ofoperation. The rights affected were merely existing rights and therewas no presumption against interference with existing rights.
Where then prior to the enactment of the statute the transaction isdone with and finished, where the contract no longer subsists, can itbe said that the Statute merely affects existing rights or does it notrather strike at vested rights which have crystallised on the basis thatthe contractual nexus is no more ? In other words, where the terminationof the contract has already taken place, is an employer whose rightsagainst and liabilities towards his employee are at that moment of time
1 Crates Statute Law, 6th ed. pp. 397*8; Halsbury, 3rd ed., vol. 36, p. 423.
Be Edmondson's Estates 1868 L. B. 5 Eq- 389 at 396-7.
[1911) 2 Ch. lot 12.
WEERAMANTRY, J.—Ram Banda v. River Valleys Development Board 46
justiciable purely upon the basis of the contract, to be subjected tofurther claims upon him arising from that Belf-same employer-employeerelationship which has come to an end ?
I think not, for his rights are vested in him at the moment of termina-tion, as are those of the employee, and in regard to such rights an Actis always presumed to speak as to the future. In the absence of expressprovision or necessary implication rights and obligations in any sensecannot be engrafted upon this dead relationship any more than theBent Restriction Act or the Debt Conciliation' Ordinance can withoutexpress provision or necessary implication apply to contracts terminatedand done with when they came into operation.
There would appear to be no provision in the Act which expressly,or by necessary implication leads to the conclusion that the Act iB retros-pective in its operation. It is true that the definition of " workman ”in section 48 expressly includes any person whose services have beenterminated but this is only for the purposes of proceedings under theAct in relation to any industrial dispute. It is not therefore applicableto Part IVA of the Act which is what concerns us here. Moreover,even in regard to industrial disputes there is room for a difference ofview on the question whether a workman includes a past workman1.
The person given the right to ask a Labour Tribunal for relief or redressis a workman and in the absence of any necessary indication to thecontrary I read this term as referring to a person who is a workmanunder the relevant contract of employment at or after the coming intooperation of Part IVA.
We thus arrive at the conclusion that although the rule in questionis ultra vires, the Statute does not apply retroactively to a terminationwhich has occurred prior to the introduction of the Aot inasmuchas this would involve an interference with vested rights for which there isneither express provision nor necessary implication in the Act.
The President has arrived at a finding of fact in the present casethat the termination was prior in time to the statute creating LabourTribunals and in the light of this finding I hold that the workman in thepresent case has no right of access to a Labour Tribunal.
This appeal cannot therefore succeed and is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
1 See the dissenting judgment' in Colombo Apothecaries Ltd. v. Wijesooriya(1968) 70 N. L. R. 481.