IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Appeal under and in terms of section 31DD of the Industrial Disputes Act (as amended) read together with section 9 of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 19 of 1990 as amended by Act No. 54 of 2006 read with Article 128 of the Constitution to the Supreme Court from a Judgment of the High Court of the Western Province holden in Colombo.

M. S. K.A. Pieris

387/4/C, Bodhiraja Mawatha, Habarakada, Homagama.

Applicant SC Appeal No. 48/2018 SC Special Leave to Appeal No. 44/2017 HCALT/COL/103/2014 LT/Colombo 13/04/2009 Vs.

Hatton National Bank PLC HNB Towers, No. 479, T.B. Jayah Mawatha, Colombo 10. Respondent AND BETWEEN Hatton National Bank PLC HNB Towers, No. 479, T.B. Jayah Mawatha, Colombo 10.

Respondent – Appellant Vs.

M.S.K.A. Pieris

387/4/C, Bodhiraja Mawatha, Habarakada, Homagama.

Applicant – Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Hatton National Bank PLC HNB Towers, No. 479, T.B. Jayah Mawatha, Colombo 10.

Respondent – Appellant – Appellant Vs.

M.S.K.A. Pieris

387/4/C, Bodhiraja Mawatha, Habarakada, Homagama.

Applicant – Respondent – Respondent Before: P. Padman Surasena, J.

Yasantha Kodagoda, PC, J.

Janak De Silva, J.

Counsel: Riad Ameen instructed by T. Ranaweera for the Respondent –

Appellant - Appellant Dr. Sunil Cooray and Sudarshani Cooray for the Applicant –

Respondent – Respondent Argued on: 9^th March, 2021 Written Submission:

On behalf of the Appellant filed on 22nd February 2019.

On behalf of the Respondent filed on 27th May 2019, 11th September

2019 and 19th November 2021.

Decided on: 8th August, 2024 Yasantha Kodagoda, PC, J.

Introduction and Background

1. The Applicant-Respondent-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the “Respondent”) was a former employee attached to the Respondent – Appellant - Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the “Appellant bank” or as the “Appellant”). He joined the Appellant bank in September 1992 as a Technical Officer attached to its ‘Premises and Engineering Division’. In 2006, he had been promoted to the position of Manager (Services). For all purposes, he worked as an Engineer of the Appellant bank. To the extent relevant to this Appeal, the Respondent was responsible for recommending suitable air conditioning systems, their procurement, installation, removal, replacement, and the maintenance of the air conditioning systems of the Appellant Bank.

2. As there were several allegations of misconduct against the Respondent, on 11th September 2007, pending the conduct of a domestic disciplinary inquiry, his employment at the Appellant bank was suspended. The charges against him, as contained in the charge sheet (R21) were as follows:

Charge 1 – While being assigned to the Engineering Division of the Bank and serving as the Manager-Services, on 08th June 2007 you did mislead the management of the Bank by a false representation of facts vide your even dated memorandum, causing the purchase of Air Conditioners for the Maharagama Branch of the bank having a total capacity far in excess of the required capacity as described in Schedule ‘A’ annexed hereto.

Charge 2 – You did cause the Bank to incur unnecessary expenditure to the extent of Rs. 724,430.00 by misleading the management regarding the installation of Air Conditioners at the Maharagama Branch.

Charge 3 – You did mislead the management of the Bank by making a false representation of facts in May 2007 causing the award of contract for water treatment services for the Air Conditioning System at City Office to M/S. Lalanka Water Management (Pvt) Ltd. Thereby you did cause a financial loss of Rs.

105,948.60 to the Bank.

Charge 4 –Vide your memorandum dated 06th June 2007 as regards the Air Conditioning requirements at Vavuniya branch, you did misrepresent facts to the management of the Bank, and thereby misled the management to award a contract to install Air Conditioners in excess of the actual requirement of the branch.

Charge 5 – You did cause the Bank to inc