099-NLR-NLR-V-73-THE-CEYLON-WORKERS’-CONGRESS-Appellant-and-THE-EASTERN-PRODUCE-AND-ESTATE-.pdf
323
WIJAYATILAKE, J.—Ceylon Workers' Congress e.
Eustern Produce and Estate Co. Ltd.
1970Present : Wijayatilake, J.
THE CEYLON WORKERS’ CONGRESS, Appellant, andTHE. EASTERN PRODUCE AND ESTATE CO. LTD.,and another, Respondents
S. C. GO/6S—Labour Tribunal Case, 4154 Kandy
Estate Labour (Indian ) Ordinance (Cap. 133)—Section 23—Scope—Industrial dispute—** Just and equitable order
Whon tho services of on estate Iabouror nro terminated, the contract of servicoof his unmarried daughtor, who is not a minor, is not lioblo to Lo terminated. undor section 23 (1) of tho Estate Labour (Indian) Ordinances. In such a casoit is not opon to a labour tribunal to rofuso reinstatement and, instead, awardcompensation on " just and oquitablo ” grounds.
Observations on tho necessity for framing issues in inquiries beforoLabourTribunals.
Appeal against an order of a Labour Tribunal.
N. Satyendra, for the applicant-appellant.- –
Lakshman Kadirgamar, with K. S. Dissanayake, for the employer-respondents.
Cur. adv. vult.
August 3, 1970. WlJAYATIXAKE, J.
On 12.3.1965 the respondents terminated the services of one Letchumyan Indian labourer employed on Hope Estate. Tho Applicant Unionon her behalf pleaded that the said termination was unjustified andprayed that she be re-instated with back wages. The respondentsalleged that the termination was justified as it was consequent, on thetermination of the services of Letchumy’s father Kanapathy, in termsof S. 23 (1) of the Estate Labour (Indian) Ordinance.
Mr. Satyendra, learned Counsel for the appellant, has drawn myattention to S. 23 (3) of this Ordinance which provides that in this section“ child ” means a minor. According to the certificate of birth A 1 of thislabourer, she was bom bn 8.3.1944 on Hope Estate and tho informantwas one G. R. B. Williams, Superintendent of Hope Estate. It wouldappear from the proceedings that the incident in respect of which herfather’s services were terminated occurred on 11.3.65; so that clearlyshe had attained majority on this date and thereforo the terminationof her services under S. 23 of the Estate Labour (Indian) Ordinance wasillegal. The present superintendent has spoken of a register maintainedby this estate according to which her age at the time of this incident wasonly 20, but he conceded that the Birth Certificate should be with the
WIJ AYATI LAKE, J.—Ceylon Wortrera’ Congress v.
Eastern Produce and Estate Co. Ltd.
323
estato authorities. It is quite clear that the superintendent has takenaction precipitately In this matter without reference to the BirthCertificate. Furthermore, the register he has been referring to has notbeen produced.
The learned President has very correctly come to the conclusion thatLetchumy was not a minor and therefore the respondents could not haveterminated her services under the said Ordinance. However, he holdsthat the employers have acted in good faith as the estate records showthat she was a minor and he proceeds to state that the services of herparents having been justifiably terminated he docs not propose to orderre-instatement, as she is not a married person and lives with her parents,and that if she is re-instated it would create problems both for herselfand for the management. He accordingly makes an award of compen-sation in a sum of Rs. ISO/- which he holds would sufilie to meet thoends of justice. I have already observed that the estate register hasnot been produced.
Mr. Satyendra submits that the order terminating this labourer’sservices is clearly illegal and therefore it is not open to tho Presidentto circumvent the law and make an order which appears to him to bojust and cquitablo. I am in entire agreement with this submission.
Mr. Kadirgamar learned Counsel for the respondents submits that thequestion raised in this appeal is not a question of law and thereforethis Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal—-vide Section 31DIndustrial Dispute Act. In my opinion the learned President has clearlyexceeded his jurisdiction by violating a legal provision and thereforetho question which has been now raised in appeal would fall withinS. 31D.
I might state that the issue in this case was quite simple and a perusalof the Birth Certificate would have been sufficient to answer it; butevidence has been led at great length which is of little relevance. Thisis a noticeable trend in proceedings before Labour Tribunals and everyattempt should be made to check it lest one misses the wood for thetrees. I need hardly comment on tho consequent long delays in thedisposal of Inquiries, and the cost of litigation and the hardships causedto the parties a3 in the instant case whero the labourer’s services hadbeen terminated as far back as 12.3.1965. It would be a useful practicefor the President to frame the points in dispute in consultation with thoparties before proceeding to Inquiry. I
I would set osido the Order of tho learned President and make or Jcrre-instating the said Letchumy with back wages from the date of dismissalupto the date of rc-instatcmcnt. I award tho applicant Rs. 300/- ascosts.
Appeal allowed.