053-NLR-NLR-V-74-MACKWOODS-LTD.-Appellant-and-TEA-RUBBER-COCONUT-GENERAL-PRODUCE-WORKERS’-U.pdf
S1RIMAXE, J.—Ceylon Estates Officers' Union v. Superintendent.
GaUiknndawatlc Estate
1S3
1971• Present: H. K. G. Fernando, C.J.MACKWOODS LTD., Appellant, and TEA, RUBBER, COCONUT &GENERAL PRODUCE WORKERS’ UNION, Respondent5. C. 31(70—Labour Tribunal, 2(32092
Industrial Disputes Act—Proceed inys before Lebour Tribunal—Evidence—Confession made to a police officer by workman—Admissibility.
Where, in proceedings before a Labour Tribunal, tho main issuo forconsideration was whether a workman's services wero lawfully terminatedon tho ground that ho was guilty of theft— •
Held, that a confession mado to a police officer by tho workman about thocommission of theft was not inadmissible in evidenco in a civil proceeding.
1S-1 H. N. O. FERNAKDO. C.J.—Ma:kicood3 Ltd. v. Tea, Rubber, Coconut <&
General Produce Workers' Union
_A.PPEAL from an order of a Labour Tribunal.
Lahshman Kadirgamar, with P. If a manathan, for the employer-appellant.
T.Joganalhan, for tho applicant-respondent.
1Cur. adv. vult.
February 14, 1971. H. N. G. Fernando, C.J.—-
In this case tho President of tho Labour Tribunal ordered there-instatement of a workman who had been employed as a lorry driverby tho Applicant Company. The President- has rightly stated that thomain issues for consideration wero whether the workman was guilty oftheft or whether he aided and abetted in the commission of theft. Hemade order in favour of the workman for the reason thus stated :—f
“There is no evidence for me to conclude that he had any hand in
the theft or aided and abetted in the commission of the theft .”
It is apparent that the President either overlooked a statement whichthe workman made to the Police, or else thought that statement to boinadmissible as being a confession made to a Police officer. Such aconfession is not inadmissible in a civil proceeding.
In that statement, tho workman clearly admitted that the labourcontractor's representative, one Kitchcl, whose duty it was to load andunload tea chests on and from tire lorry which – lie workman drove, landmade a certain suggestion after some tea chests had been loaded on thelorry for transport to the Appellant’s stores. That suggestion v.as“ since these chests arc not weighed again, we can remove some tea fromthese chests”. The workman further admitted lhat ho agreed to thissuggestion, that he drove the lorry to some place, that there some teawas put into gunny bags, and that Kitchcl took away tire gunny hags.There was also evidence that when the workman drove the lorry to theAppellant’s stoic, the tea chests appeared to have been tampered with ;they were therefore weighed and a shortage was discovered. ThoAppellant at first- denied making the statement, but in cross-examinationho said “ I made a statement to the Police on 20th May. That was thestatement, that was read out- to me today ”.
There was thus clear evidence that by driving the lorry to tho placeat which tea was stolen from the chests, and by agreeing to the suggestionthat the tea be removed, tho workman did aid and abet the commissionof the theft. But for tho grave misdirection that there was no suchevidence, the President would necessarily have held that the dismissalof the workman was justified. For these reasons, I set aside the order ofthe Tribunal with costs fixed at Rs. 105.
Order del aside.