010-NLR-NLR-V-64-SHELL-COMPANY-OF-CEYLON-LTD.-Appellant-and-D.-C.-PATHIRANA-Respondent.pdf
ABEYESUNDERE, J.—Shell Company of Ceylon Ltd. v. Palhirantt
71
Present: Abeyesundere, J.
i
SHELL COMPANY OF CEYLON LTD., Appellant, andD. C. PATHERANA, Respondent
S. G. 33j 1961—Labour Tribunal, 3,997
Labour tribunal—Termination of workman's services—Scope of tribunal's power' togrant relief—Industrial Disputes Act, No. 43 of 1950, as amended by Act No. 62of 1957, ss. 31 B (4), 31 C (2).
A labour tribunal has jurisdiction under section 31 B (4), read with section31 C (1), of the Industrial Disputes Act to grant relief to a workman in spite ofthe fact that his services havo been lawfully and justifiably terminated by hisemployer.
A labour tribunal, having considered the circumstances in which a workman’sservices were terminated, ordered the payment of six weeks’ wages to theworkman-in lieu of notice instead of two weeks’ wages which had been offeredto him in accordance with the terms of the contract of service.
Held, that the tribunal had jurisdiction, to grant such relief.
-A.PPEAL from an order of a Labour Tribunal.
H. V. Per era, Q.C., with S. J. Kadirgamar and L. Kadirgamar, for theEmployer- Appellant.
C. Ranganathan, with M. T. M. Sivardeen and S. D. Jayawardene, forthe Applicant-Respondent.
May 29, 1962. Abeyesundere, J.—
This is an appeal on a point of law from an order made by a LabourTribunal on an application made by an employee of the appellant forrelief under section 31B of the Industrial Disputes Act, No. 43 of 1950,as amended by Act No. 62 of 1957, in respect of the termination of hisservices by the appellant. The point of law that I have to consider is. whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to grant relief under the aforesaidsection in view of the fact that the tribunal has held that the terminationof service of the respondent is not only lawful but also justified. Thereis no limit imposed by the legislature in regard to the power to grantrelief under section 31B that would prevent the grant of relief where thetermination of service is both lawful and justified. The only limit placedon the power to grant relief under the said section 31B is that containedin sub-section (1) of section 31C of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thatsub-section requires the order granting relief to be just and equitable.The power to grant relief under section 31B is wide in view of the fact thatsub-section (4) of that section enables relief to be granted notwithstandinganything to the contrary in any contract of service between the applicantand his employer.
72
ABEYESUNDERE, J.—Shell Company of Ceylon Lid. v. Pathirana
In the present case, the tribunal, having considered the circumstanceswhich in its opinion necessitate the grant of relief, reached the conclusionthat, taking into consideration the nature of employment, length ofservice and the wage period of the respondent, it would be just andequitable to grant relief in respect of the termination of his services byrequiring the payment of 6 weeks' wages in lieu of notice instead of 2 weeks’wages which had been offered to him in accordance with the terms of thecontract of service. It is not for mo to consider whether' or not the grounds ■on which the tribunal considered that the applicant -was entitled to reliefare reasonable or justifiable. So long as the tribunal had jurisdiction togrant such relief, this Court has no power to go into any question of fact.
In view of the conclusion I have reached that the Labour Tribunal hadjurisdiction to grant the relief that it has granted, I dismiss the appealwdth costs.
Appeal dismissed.