Weerasirttcardena v. Avissatpetta M.P.CS.
1976 Present: Di heragoda, J., Malcolm Perera, J. and
S. L. D. C. DE ALWIS WEERASIRIWARDENA, Petitioner
AVISSAWELLA M. P. C. S. and ANOTHER, Respondents-S. C. Application No. 472 of 1975
Cn-operal ive Employees Commission Act, No. 12 of 1972, sections 14and 15—Co-operative society—Ckurges of fraud against employee—Inquiry—Duty on Commission of general supervision of co-operative societies—Direction to Society given to terminateservices of such employee—Powers under sections 14 and 15 of theAct.
Held : That the Co operative Employees Commission establishedunder Act No. 12 of 1S72 has in pursuance of its powers undersections 14 and 15 of (he said Act and in the performance of itsduties of general supervision of Co-operative Societies the powerto direct a society to terminate the se vices of an employee. Thepetitioner had been fully heard on ihe charges of fraud against him.at the inquiry held by the Committee of Management and thedirection was given with regu d to the proper penalty to be imposedon the basis of findings made by the inquiring officer and the Com-mittee of Management. This Application must therefore fail.
FPL1CATION lor a Writ of Certiorari and/or Mandamus.
Prins Gunasekera, with Miss U. K. Wimalachandra, for '.hepetitioner.
K.D. P. Wickremasinyhe, for the 1st respondent.
Douglas Premaratne, Senior State Counsel, for the 2ndrespondent.
GUNASEKERA, J. — Weeratiriwardena v. Aviaemotlla M. P. G. S. 60$October 11, 1976. Gunasekera, J.
The petitioner in this case had asked for a Writ of Certiorariand/or Mandamus on the Avissawella Multipurpose Co-operative Society as the 1st respondent and the Co-operativeEmployees Commission as the 2nd respondent in respect of anorder terminating his employment as Store-keeper of the Whole-sale Depot of the 1st respondent.
The petitioner states that after inquiry on certain chargesinvolving fraud against him, the Committee of Management haddecided to re-instate him in his post with certain financialpenalties and that he appealed against this order to the 2ndrespondent-commission. He complains that the 2nd respondent-commission had not decided his appeal nor communicated theirdecision thereon but that instead, the Commission has issued adirection to the society that the petitioner’s services should beterminated (vide P5 dated 3.7.1975) and the society has on thatdirection, dismissed him.
We have examined the provisions of the Co-operative Emplo-yees Commission Act, No. 12 of 1972, and we find that sections14 and 15 give the Commission ample power to give such adirection to the 1st respondent and that this direction, thusgiven, was apparently not made on the appeal taken by thepetitioner hut in pursuance of its powers under these sectionsand in the performance of its duties of general supervision ofco-operative societies.
We have heard Mr. Gunasekera at this resumed sitting todayon the scope of these sections. He complains that even though theCommission had the power to give this direction in terms ofthese sections, he should have been heard by the Commissionbefore this direction was given to the 1st respondent-society.
We are quite satisfied that as far as the petitioner was con-cerned, he was heard fully at the enquiry held into the chargesof fraud and that the Committee of Management, in fact, firstdecided on the report of the enquiring officer to terminate theservices of the petitioner but that the petitioner was fortunate inbeing able to persuade six members of the Committee to meet onthe very next day and change that decision and to decide thatthough the charges of fraud were proved against the petitioner,he should nevertheless be restored to his post, subject only tocertain financial penalties. In these circumstances, we do notthink the petitioner can strictly complain that he was not heardbefore his dismissal. The direction given by the Commission was
504GTJNASBKERA, J.— Weerasiriwardeno, v. AvissawtOa M. P. C. S.
only with regard to the proper penalty to be imposed on thepetitioner on* the findings of both the enquiring officer and theCommittee of Management.
For these reasons, the application is dismissed with costspayable to bsqth respondents.
Deheragod J.—I agree.
Mapcoi.M Pfpef.a, J.—I agree.
S. L. D. C. DE ALWIS WEERASIRIWARDENA, Petitioner and AVISSAWELLA M. P. C. S.