081-NLR-NLR-V-77-L.-HEWAVITHARANA-Appellant-and-P.-BO-DE-LANEROLLE-Respondent.pdf
WIJAYATILAKE, J.—Hewavitharana v. Lanerolle
405
Present: Wijayatilake, J.
HEWAVITHARANA, Appellant, and P. B. DE LANEROLLE,
Respondent
S. C. 274/71—Labour Tribunal, 4/M/937
Labour Tribunal—Ex parte inquiry in the absence of a party—Letterrequesting postponement of the inquiry—Failure of the Secretaryto the Tribunal to draw attention to the letter—Liability of theex parte order to be set aside—Industrial Disputes Regulations,1958, Regulation 28—Need for maintaining a journal in LabourTribunal proceedings.
Where, in an industrial dispute, the inquiry was held by theLabour Tribunal ex parte on account of the failure of theSecretary to the Tribunal to draw the attention of the Tribunalto a letter sent by the absent party requesting a postponement ofthe proceedings on the ground that he was in hospital followingan accident—
Held, that the ex parte order was liable to be set aside as it didnot conform to Regulation 28 of the Industrial Disputes Regulationsof 1958.
Observations on the need for maintaining a journal in LabourTribunal proceedings.
^PPEAL from an order of a Labour Tribunal.
W. Athulathmudali, with A. J. 1. Tillekewardene, for theemployer-appellant.
Applicant-respondent absent and unrepresented.
June 12, 1973. Wijayatilake, J.—
The applicant-respondent is absent and unrepresented. Mr.Athulathmudali, learned counsel for the employer-appellantsubmits that the learned President has failed to conform toRegulation 28 of the Industrial Disputes Regulations of 1958.This Regulation reads as follows: —
“ If without sufficient cause being shown any party toany proceedings before an Industrial Court or an arbitratoror a Labour Tribunal fails to attend or to be represented,the Court or arbitrator or Labour Tribunal, as the casemay be, may proceed with the matter notwithstanding theabsence of such party or any representative of such party. ”
In the instant case it would appear that the Chief Clerk ofthe Mawarala Tea and Rubber Estate of which the applicantwas an employee had addressed a letter dated 20.8.71 to theSecretary of the Labour Tribunal requesting a postponementof the inquiry on behalf of the employer as the Superintendentof the estate was not in a position to attend the inquiry, as hewas in hospital following an accident. This inquiry had been
406
Piyasena v. Kamalauathie
fixed for 27.8.71. It would appear from the face of this letterthat it bears the date stamp of the Labour Tribunal bearingthe date 23.8.71. However, when this matter came up for inquiryon the 27th August, the case had proceeded to exparte inquiryand it is quite clear from the proceedings that the learnedPresident’s attention had not been drawn to this letter and hehad accordingly made an exparte order. Mr. Athulathmudali,very strenuously submits that in the light of this letter, it isquite clear that this Tribunal has not conformed to Regulation28 referred to. I am inclined to agree with him. This letterhaving been received in the office of the Labour Tribunal Icannot understand why it had not been shown to the Presidentat least on the date of inquiry. Perhaps a journal has not beenmaintained in this case and in consequence this has been over-looked by the office. This is a most unsatisfactory feature andin my opinion, the necessity for the maintaining of a journalin Labour Tribunal proceedings should be considered seriouslyby these Tribunals or else it could lead not only to a mal-administration of justice but to a waste of public time.
I would accordingly set aside the order of the learned Presidentand direct that the case be sent back for inquiry de novo beforeanother President. I make no order as to costs.
Case sent back for fresh inquiry.