008-NLR-NLR-V-71-THE-MANAGER-URY-GROUP-PASSARA-Appellant-and-THE-DEMOCRATIC-WORKERS-CONGRESS.pdf
SAMERAWICKRAME, J.—Manager, Vry Group, Passara47
v. Democratic Workers' Congress
Present: Samerawickrame, J.
THE MANAGER, URY GROUP, PASSARA, Appellant, and THEDEMOCRATIC WORKERS’ CONGRESS, Respondent
. S. C. 184167—Labour Tribunal Case, 1689jB
Labour Tribunal—Requirement that its order should only be made against a natural orlegal person—Amendment of pleadings—Permissibility.
Where, in an application made to a Labour Tribunal, tho name of theemployer-respondent has not been stated but his identity can be sufficientlyknown from his designation or description, the caption in the pleadings may besuitably amended so as to satisfy the requirement that a Labour Tribunal’sorder can only be made against a natural or legal person.
A
PPEAL from an order of a Labour Tribunal.
C. Ranganathan, Q.C., with A. M. Coomaraswamy, for the employer-appellant.
No appearance for the applicant-respondent.
Cur. adv. vtdl.
July 7,1908. Samerawickrame, J.—
Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant was unable to urge anygrounds upon which I could hold that the findings made in the order of thePresident of the Labour Tribunal should be set aside. He, however,pressed the appeal on a question of law. He submitted that an ordercould only be made by the Tribunal against a natural or legal person.In this case, the party who was made respondent to the application andagainst whom the order has been .made is, “ The Manager, Ury Group,Passara In support of his contention, he referred to the case ofSuperintendent, Deeside Estate, Maskeliyav. Hankai Thozhilar Kazkakam1in which Siva Supramaniam J. held that an application filed and an ordermade against “ the Superintendent, Deeside Estate, Maskeliya ” was badin as much as the order made was not one against a natural or legalperson and was, therefore, not an enforceable order.
While I agree that an application should be made against a natural orlegal person, I do not think there should be the same insistence on theproper naming of the respondent as there would be, for example, in thecase of an application made to a Court of law. If there is such designation
‘ (j968) 70 N. L. R. 279.
48SAMERAWICKRAME, J.—Manager, Ury Group, Passara
v. Democratic Workers' Congress
or description from which the identity of the employer can be known, itshould be sufficient. I am in respectful agreement with my brother SivaSupramaniam that an order made by a Labour Tribunal should, on theface of it, be against a natural or legal person as for the purposes ofenforcement, such an order may be presented to a Court. This may,however, be effected by a suitable amendment of the caption, wherenecessary, before an order is made. It is important that Presidentsof Labour Tribunals should pay attention to this matter, as otherwiseapplications for the enforcement of their orders may have to beaccompanied by affidavits or other material to establish the natural orlegal person against whom the orders were made.
I think that in this case no prejudice has been caused by the failureto make by name the Manager, Ury Group, Passara, the respondent tothe application filed in this matter, because the person who was theManager has filed answer and has also filed the appeal against the orderof the President of the Labour Tribunal. From the proxy filed in theseproceedings by the Firm of Proctors who filed the appeal, his nameappears to be W. Wickremasinghe. For the purpose, therefore, of recti-fying matters and of obviating any further difficulty that may otherwisearise, I direct that the caption in the pleadings and in particular in theorder of the President of the Labour Tribunal should be amended bystating the employer to be W. Wickremasinghe, The Manager, UryGroup, Passara. The appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.