IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA.

Assistant Commissioner of Cooperative Development, Department of Cooperative Development (WP), Colombo 01.

Petitioner CA (PHC): 72/2017 Vs.

Panadura HC: 20/2017 (Rev)

Piyal Ranjith Thambawita, No. 143/16, Sripura Batahena Road, Thimbiriya, Kalapugama, Moranthuduwa.

Respondent NOW Piyal Ranjith Thambawita, No. 143/16, Sripura Batahena Road, Thimbiriya, Kalapugama, Moranthuduwa.

Respondent-Petitioner Vs.

1. Assistant Commissioner of Cooperative Development, Department of Cooperative Development (WP), Colombo 01.

Petitioner-Respondent

2. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent AND NOW BY AND BETWEEN Piyal Ranjith Thambawita, No. 143/16, Sripura Batahena Road, Thimbiriya, Kalapugama, Moranthuduwa.

Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant Vs.

1. Assistant Commissioner of Cooperative Development, Department of Cooperative Development (WP), Colombo 01.

2. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12.

Respondent-Respondents Before: Prasantha De Silva, J.

K.K.A.V. Swarnadhipathi, J.

Counsel: Chandrasiri Wanigapura A.A.L for the Respondent-Petitioner-

Appellant.

Rajin Gunaratne S.C for the Respondent-Respondent.

Written Submissions 10.11.2021 by the Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant.

tendered on: 07.10.2021 by the 1^st and 2^nd Respondent-Respondents.

Argued on: 11.10.2021 Decided on: 06.05.2022 Prasantha De Silva, J.

Judgment

This is an appeal made by Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant which emanates from the Order made by the learned High Court Judge of Panadura exercising revisionary jurisdiction and seeks to set aside the Order of the learned Magistrate dated 27.04.2017. Further, an Order directing the 1^st Respondent-Respondent-Respondent [hereinafter referred to as the 1^st Respondent] to hold a proper inquiry as per the direction of the minister for Cooperative development [Western Province]

was sought.

It appears that the Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant [hereinafter referred to as the Appellant] was an employee employed in the Panadura Multipurpose Cooperative Society as a storekeeper. The Appellant being the storekeeper, was in charge of a store of the said Cooperative Society. During his tenure as storekeeper, a shortage of items in the said store was revealed and the Cooperative Society had taken steps to recover the loss discovered from the shortage. However, the Appellant disputed the said shortage and disagreed to pay the said loss. Hence, the 1^st Respondent Society had referred the matter for Arbitration in terms of Section 58 (2) of the Cooperative Societies Act No. 05 of 1972 as amended.

It was submitted by the 1^st and 2^nd Respondent-Respondents [hereinafter referred to as the Respondents] that an audit was conducted to assess the losses that had taken place from 20.09.2007 to 31.01.2008 under which an Arbitration was held, and the certificate of enforcement was filed in the Magistrate’s Court of Panadura where the sum referred in the said certificate was paid by the Appellant. A further audit to assess the losses that had taken place from 01.02.2008 to 01.04.2008 was conducted and a further enforcement certificate to recover the due amount awarded at the Arbitration was filed in the Magistrate’s Court of Panadura. It was further submitted that the Cooperative Society first sent a letter of demand and thereafter the Arbitrator had informed the Appellant about the Arbitration inquiry, sending a notice by registered post twice. However, the Appellant had failed to mark his appearance at the Arbitration inquiry.

Consequent to the Arbitration, the Arbitration award was communicated to the Appellant, further informing that he may prefer an appeal against the Arbitration award in terms of Section 58 (3) of the Cooperative Societies Act. However, the Appellant had failed to prefer an appeal in terms of Section 58 (3) of the Cooperative Societies Act and the 1^st Respondent Commissioner had taken steps to enforce the Arbitration award in terms