030-SLLR-SLLR-1994-V2-PIYASENA-SILVA-V.-CEYLON-FISHERIES-CORPORATION.pdf
292
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[1994] 2 Sri LR.
PIYASENA SILVA
v.
CEYLON FISHERIES CORPORATION
COURT OF APPEAL.
SENANAYAKE, J.
C.A. NO. 323/88LT 1/ADDL/5277/92, COLOMBO.
SEPTEMBER 08. 1992.
Industrial Law – Is it necessary to serve a charge sheet? – Domestic inquiry.
In our law it is not necessary to serve a charge sheet or hold a domestic inquirybefore taking a decision not to reinstate an employee dismissed for unauthorisedremoval of cheques though he was discharged in the cases filed against him.
APPEAL from order of Labour Tribunal
Daya Guruge for appellant.
Chula de Silva PC. with R. Deviligoda for respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
Piyasena Silva v. Ceylon Fisheries Corporation (Senarmyake, J.)
293
CA
October 08,1992.
SENANAYAKE. J.
’ This is an appeal from an order made by the learned President ofthe Labour Tribunal dismissing the applicant's application forreinstatement with back wages, but, however he awarded gratuitycalculated on the basis of half months’ consolidated terminal salaryas at 1.7.81 per year of service in respect of his 14 completed yearsof service.
The facts briefly are: the applicant was employed at the relevanttime as a Clerk and he was interdicted on 24.4.75 and after he wasdischarged from the Magistrate Court proceedings he was reinstatedwith back wages effective from 20.9.75. Thereafter he was againinterdicted on the same charges on 3.6.76; though he was chargedin three cases in the Magistrate's Court he was finally discharged on30.6.81. He averred that he had not been reinstated by therespondent and prayed that he be reinstated with back wages.
The respondent filed a general answer and averred that theapplicant was involved in unauthorised removal of cheques sent tothe respondent Corporation and averred that the respondent had lostconfidence and was not prepared to reinstate him in employment andprayed that the application be dismissed.
The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was adenial of natural justice. He submitted that there was no charge sheetserved or a domestic inquiry held before the respondent took adecision not to reinstate the applicant. 1 cannot agree with hissubmission. Our law does not require to hold a domestic inquiry. Thisis well settled law in this country. The learned President hadconsidered and evaluated the evidence in this case. He hadconsidered the statement made by the applicant to the Police, andhe had concluded that this was a voluntary statement where theapplicant had admitted the misconduct. Though the applicantattempted to give a different explanation in Court his explanation hasnot been accepted by the learned President. Credibility of theevidence of a witness is not a question of law but it is question offact. ;
The result of the Magistrate Court proceedings has no bearing tothis case. The burden of proof at the Tribunal is on a balance of
294
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[1994] 2 Sri L.R.
probability and not beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Presidenthad given due consideration to the point of law as specified inSection 31(1) D (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The determinationwas based on question of fact and I am of the view that his order wasjust and equitable. He has not only considered the employees’position but he has given due consideration to the post andresponsibility imposed on the applicant and the applicant's failure tomeet his obligations. I do not see any reason to interfere with hisorder. I affirm his order and dismiss the appeal with costs fixed atRs. 125/-.
Appeal dismissed.