009-SLLR-SLLR-2003-1-WIMALASIRI-PERERA-AND-OTHERS-v.-LAKMALI-ENTERPRISES-DIESEL-AND-PETROL.pdf
62
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[2003] 1 Sri L.R
WIMALASIRI PERERA AND OTHERS
v.LAKMALI ENTERPRISES DIESEL AND PETROLMOTOR ENGINEERS AND OTHERS
SUPREME COURT
FERNANDO, J., GUNASEKERA, J., ANDWIGNESWARAN, J.
SC APPEAL No. 58/2000PHC/WP (COLOMBO) No. HCA/LT 1692/98LT Nos. 1/312-314/968TH MARCH. 2001
Industrial Dispute – Appeal by employer – Failure to deposit security – Section31 D (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act – Whether the deposit of security ismandatory.
The employer – respondents appealed to the High Court against relief whichhad been granted to the workmen – appellants by the Labour Tribunal, butfailed to deposit security in terms of section 31D(4) of the Industrial DisputesAct.
sc
Wimalasiri Perera and Others v. Lakmali Enterprises Diesel andPetrol Motor Engineers and Others (Fernando, J.)
63
Held:
The deposit of security was mandatory; and the High Court erred in holdingthat the unexplained failure to deposit security did not justify the rejection ofthe appeal.
APPEAL from the judgment of the High Court.
Case referred to:
1. Sri Lanka General Workers’ Union v. Samaranayake (1996)2 Sri LR268 distinguished
Sunil F.A. Cooray with La! Perera and Dilip Obeysekera for appellants.
Cur.adv.vult
March 08, 2001FERNANDO, J.
In this case the Labour Tribunal had awarded the threeApplicants-Respondents-Appellants Rs. 63,000/-, Rs. 30,000/-,and Rs. 48,000/-, as compensation. The Employes-Appellants-Respondents appealed to the High Court on 8/4/99 but failed todeposit security in terms of section 31 D (4). On appeal the objec-tion was taken on behalf of the Applicants that the appeal could notbe proceeded with since security had not been deposited. TheEmployers did not deposit security even then, nor did they tenderany evidence as to the reason for that default. The learned HighCourt Judge held that the failure to deposit security does not war-rant the rejection of an appeal.
In Sri Lanka General Workers’ Union v. Samaranayake(1)where security was deposited seven days late, it was held that thetime limit was not mandatory, and that the High Court had a dis-cretion to entertain the appeal after considering the nature of thedefault, the circumstances in which it occurred, and the prejudice tothe other party. That does not mean, however, that the deposit ofsecurity was not mandatory.
The High Court erred in holding that the unexplained failureto deposit security did not justify the rejection of the appeal.
64
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[2003] 1 Sri L.R
I allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court, andrestore the order of the Labour Tribunal. The applicants will be enti-tled to the sums awarded by the Labour Tribunal together with afurther sum equivalent to 25% thereof (in lieu of interest), and costsin a sum of Rs. 5000/- (Rs. Five Thousand) each.
GUNASEKERA, J. -I agree
WIGNESWARAN, J. -I agree
Appeal allowed.