IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application under Section 31 DD(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act as amended, read with Section 9(a) of the High Court of Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 19 of 1990 amended by Act No. 54 of

2006.

Case No. SC APPEAL 198/18 HC Case No. HCALT 08/2013 Ceylon Bank Employees Union

20, Temple Road, LT Case No. 23/Ku/7234/2001 Colombo 10.

(On behalf of W.M. Wijeratne Banda)

APPLICANT Vs.

People’s Bank

75, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02.

RESPONDENT AND BETWEEN People’s Bank

75, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02.

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT Vs.

Ceylon Bank Employees Union

20, Temple Road, Colombo 10.

(On behalf of W.M. Wijeratne Banda)

APPLICANT-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Ceylon Bank Employees Union

20, Temple Road, Colombo 10.

(On behalf of W.M. Wijeratne Banda)

APPLICANT-RESPONDENT-

APPELLANT Vs.

People’s Bank

75, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02.

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT-

RESPONDENT BEFORE: S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J.

JANAK DE SILVA, J. AND ARJUNA OBEYESEKERE, J.

COUNSEL: A.S.M. Perera, PC with Uvindu Jayasiri for the Applicant-Respondent-

Appellant Manoli Jinadasa with Dilini Reeves for the Respondent-Appellant-

Respondent, instructed by Amanda Wijesinghe WRITTEN Applicant-Respondent-Appellant on 9^th January 2024 SUBMISSIONS: Respondent-Appellant-Respondent on 30^th August 2018 ARGUED ON: 03^rd July 2024 DECIDED ON: 21^st May 2025 THURAIRAJA, PC, J.

1. This appeal arises out of an action filed by the Ceylon Bank Employees’ Union (Applicant-

Respondent-Appellant), against the People’s Bank (Respondent-Appellant-Respondent, hereinafter referred to as the “Respondent Bank”), on behalf of W.M. Wijeratne Banda (to whom I shall hereinafter refer to as the “Appellant” for convenience), who was employed by the Respondent Bank for a period of 35 years.

2. The Appellant joined the Bank on 02^nd December 1965 and, at the time of his termination on 12th January 2001, held the position of Grade II Senior Manager while serving as the Manager of the Mahiyangana Branch. His employment was terminated on grounds of misconduct, following a Domestic Inquiry conducted by the Bank.

3. The termination was preceded by a Branch Inspection carried out by the Chief Internal Auditor of the Bank, covering the period from 24^th March 1992 to 27^th September 1995, during which the Appellant was in charge of the Mahiyangana Branch. The said audit revealed several financial irregularities, including the granting of loans without obtaining necessary security, failure to comply with internal circular instructions, and the mismanagement of overdraft facilities. Additionally, a Branch Handing Over Certificate, compiled by the subsequent branch Manager, listed various instances of irregularities that had taken place under the Appellant’s tenure, which the Employee had signed and accepted.

4. Based on these findings, the Bank issued the charge sheet dated 13^th December 1999, containing six counts of misconduct, including the Appellant’s failure to obtain security for loans, violation of circular instructions, and actions that resulted in financial losses to the Bank. Following the Domestic Inquiry, the Appellant was found guilty on five out of the six charges and was consequently dismissed from service on 12th January 2001.

5. Challenging his termination, the Appellant, through a Registered Trade Union, filed an application in the Labour Tribunal, claiming that his dismissal was unfair and excessive. He contended that he had maintained an unblemished service record for 35 years and had even received commendations from the Bank prior to his termination. He further argued that the alleged lapses were minor, and the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the nature of the charges.

6. During the proceedings before the Labour Tribunal, the Respondent Bank called four witnesses, namely, M.M. Samarasekera, the then Manager of the Mahiyangana Branch; T. Newton, a retired Bank Mana