029-NLR-NLR-V-70-KALUTARA-TOTAMUNE-MULTI-PURPOSE-CO-OPERATIVE-UNION-LTD.-Petitioner-and-H.-S.-P.pdf
Kalutara Totamune Multi-purpose Co-operative Societies Union Ltd.
v. H. S. Perera
11?
1967 Present : H. N. G. Fernando, C.J., and Samerawickrame, J.KALUTARA TOTAMUNE MULTI-PURPOSE CO-OPERATIVESOCIETIES UNION LTD., Petitioner, and H. S. PERERAand 3 others, RespondentsS. C. 3j66—Application for a Mandate in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari
Co-operative Societies Ordinance—Section 53—Dispute relating to a contract ofemployment—Reference to an arbitrator—Powers of the arbitrator.
11BH. X. G. FERNANDO, C.J.—Kalntara Totamunc Midti-jrurpose
Co-operative Societies Union Ltd. v. H. S. Pertra
Where a dispute relating to a contract of employment between a co-operativesociety and an officer of the society is referred by the Registrar to an arbitrator,the arbitrator ean allow only a remedy or relief due to a party under the law.Accordingly, the officer cannot be awarded any compensation if he is ordered tobe retired for inefficiency on the ground of mismanagement. An arbitratorunder the Co-operative Societies Ordinance does not have the same powers as alabour tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act.
App LICATION for a writ of Certiorari.
E. R. S. R. Coomaraswamy, with Xihal Jayawickreina and II. A.Abeywardene, for the Petitioner.
M.Kanagasunderam, Crown Counsel, for the 2nd Respondent.
October 6, 1967. H. N. G. Fernando, C.J.—
This is an application for the quashing of the award made under Section53 of the Co-operative Societies Ordinance. Apparently the Societydecided to dismiss the Administrative Secretary on the ground ofmismangement, and the Petitioner decided to refer the matter to theRegistrar of Co-operative Societies who referred the “ dispute ” to anArbitrator. The Arbitrator has found that the Administrative Secretarywas guilty of mismanagement in that he had cashed a large number ofcheques, totalling to an extremely high amount, for a customer of theSociety. The Arbitrator himself states in the award that the Societycannot retain the services of a person who lias been found guilty of suchconduct as this, and has accordingly ordered that the AdministrativeSecretary be retired for inefficiency. Nevertheless, the Arbitrator hasordered that a year’s salary be paid to him as compensation for loss ofcareer. On an appeal to him the Registrar of Co-operative Societies whois the 2nd Respondent above-named ordered that he should be paidRs. 6,300.
The dispute between the Society and its Secretary relates to a contractof employment between the Society and the Secretary, and if the Societywas justified in terminating the contract on the ground of misconduct onthe part of the Administrative Secretary, the latter can have no legalrights for any compensation. An Arbitrator under the Co-operativeSocieties Ordinance does not have the same powers as a LabourTribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act. An Arbitrator canallow only a remedy or relief due to a party under the law.
We set aside the award in so far as it orders the Society to pay oneyear’s salary to the 3rd respondent, as well as the order of the 2ndRespondent for payment of Rs. 6,300. The 3rd respondent must pay tothe Society the costs of this application.
Samerawickrame, J.—I agree .
Application allowed.