050-NLR-NLR-V-49-PEIRIS-Appellant-and-PEIRIS-Respondent.pdf
167
SOERTSZ S.P.J.—Petris v. Petris.
1947Present : Soertsz S. P. J. and Jayetileke J.
PEIRIS, Appellant, and PEIRIS, Respondent.
S. C. 1—JD. G. (Inly.) Colombo, 15,795.
Wrongful dismissed—Action for damages•—Motivs for dismissal—Relevance of issue.
In an action for damages for wrongful dismissal, the motive for the dismissaldoes not affect the question of damages and an issue on it should not be allowed.
Appeal, from a judgment of the District Judge of Colombo.
H. V. Perera, K.C., with D. W. Fernando, for the defendant, appellant.
N. E. Weerasooria, K.G., with E. G. Wikramanayake and VernonWijetunge, for the plaintiff, respondent.
November 26, 1947. Soektsz S.P.J.—This is an appeal from an order made by the District Judge of Colomboallowing a certain issue to be framed at the instance of the plaintiff’s■Counsel notwithstanding an objection taken to the issue by the defend-ant’s Counsel on the ground that it was irrelevant.
The action was one in which the plaintiff, who had been employed bythe defendant as an accounts clerk, alleging that he had been “ wrongfullyand unlawfully and without cause dismissed ” on September 30, 1944,sought to recover certain sums of money on account of balance salary,dearness allowance, Provident Fund dues, and damages sustained by
168
SOERTSZ S.P.J.—Peiria v. Peiria.
him by reason of the wrongful dismissal. The defendant, in her answer,stated that “ as she lawfully might, she discontinued the plaintiff’sservices in August, 1944 ”, giving him one month’s salary in lieu of notice,as well as the salary for August, 1944, and the money to his credit inthe Provident Fund, all of which she alleged the plaintiff refused toaccept and all of which she brought into Court. In this state of .thepleadings, the substantial issue was whether the plaintiff’s services-were terminated lawfully or unlawfully. The plaintiff, however, averredin paragraph 4 of the plaint that ‘ ‘ the only reason for the dismissalof the plaintiff was that the plaintiff when requested by the new Super-intendent .. .and Assistant Superintendent …. to make
false entries in the books refused to do so ”. Relying upon this aver-ment, the plaintiff’s Counsel, when the case came up for trial suggestedthe issue “Was the reason for the dismissal the fact that the plaintiffrefused to make false entries in the books?”. This issue was objectedto by the defendant’s Counsel as being irrelevant and calculated to“ a lot of irrelevant evidence being led ”. The judge overruled theobjection and adopted the issue.
I am clearly of opinion that that issue is irrelevant inasmuch as it.raises a question of motive which cannot arise in a case of this kind.The action was upon a contract of service and was liable to be terminatedby either party giving reasonable notice. The sole question is whetherthe plaintiff had been given such notice. If such notice had been givenand the contract, in that way, lawfully terminated, it is immaterialthat the defendant was actuated by improper motives, just as it wouldbe immaterial that an unlawful termination of the contract was in-fluenced by most unimpeachable motives. Assume that the plaintiff’saverment in paragraph 4 is true, but suppose that it is also true thatreasonable notice was given and the Court so found, what is the reliefthe Court could have given the plaintiff by reason of its finding that thelawful termination of the contract was due to improper and even wickedmotives ? In this connection it would be useful to refer to what wassaid in the House of Lords in the case of Addis v. Gramophone Co. Ltd.1Lord Lorebum said : “ My Lords, it is difficult to imagine a betterillustration of the way in which litigation between exasperated litigantscan breed barren controversies and increase costs in a matter of itselfsimple enough. To my mind, it signifies nothing in the present casewhether the claim is to be treated as for wrongful dismissal or not. Inany case, there was a breach of contract in not allowing the plaintiff todischarge his duties as manager, and the damages are exactly the samein either view …. I cannot agree that the manner of dismissalaffects these damages.”
I would set aside the order appealed from with costs and remit thecase for trial on issues 1, 3, and 4.
Jayettleke J.—I agree.
Order set aside.
(1909) A. C. 488.