NEXT MANUFACTURING (PVT) LTD

NEXT MANUFACTURING (PVT) LTD

Vs.

JAYASUNDARA

SUPREME COURT
MALALGODA, J.
SURASENA, J.
THURAIRAJA, J.
SC/APPEAL/139/2017
SC/HC/LA/92/2016
HC/APPEAL/428/2012
LT NEGOMBO 21/2596/2009
FEBRUARY 10, 2020

Industrial Disputes Act, No. 43 of 1950, sections 12 to 15-Settlement of industrial dispute by the Commissioner General of Labour-Binding effect and repudiation of settlement-Jurisdiction of the Labour Tribunal

Once a settlement is reached on an industrial dispute before the Commissioner General of Labourin terms of section 12(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over the dispute.

APPEAL from the Judgment of the High Court of Negombo.

Manoli Jinadasa with Shehara Karunatne for the Respondent-Appellant-Appellant.

Thanuka Nandasiri for the Applicant-Respondent-Respondent.

cur. adv. vult.

June 9, 2020

THURAIRAJA, J.

The Employer, Next Manufacturing (Pvt.) ltd. is the Employer-Respondent-Appellant-Appellant (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the Employer-Appellant). The Employee, Ms. W.K.S. Jayasundara is the Applicant-Respondent-Respondent (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the Employee-Respondent).

It was revealed at the Labour Tribunal that the Employee-Respondent was a Senior Clerk in the Human Resources division of the said Company and was employed with the Employer-Appellant from 13.12.1993. The Employee-Respondent claimed that her services were terminated along with other employees after paying of nominal compensation and obtaining signatures to the documents hence the said termination of services is unjust and inequitable. The Employee-Respondent filed an application in the Labour Tribunal and stated inter alia as follows.

(a) That Employee-Respondent joined the Company on 13.12.1993 and was the Senior Clerk-Human Resources on or around 15. 05.2009;

(b) That on or around 15.05.2009, 20-25 employees including her had been terminated from their employment in unjust and inequitable manner by getting them signed to a document and giving them a nominal compensation and obtaining signatures to documents;

Employer-Appellant filed their answer and stated that the services of Employee-Respondent had ended in consequence of a Voluntary Retirement Scheme which was formulated in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Gazette Extraordinary No. 1384/07 dated 15.03.2005 under the Termination of Employment of Workmen (Special Provisions) Act, No. 45 of 1971.

The Employer-Appellant is a business establishment engaged in manufacturing of Apparel for export. Necessarily, the success of the business is contingent upon market forces, to be precise the 'demand' for apparel in the overseas markets. The learned counsel for the Employer-Appellant in the course of her submissions contended that it is the global economic recession in the apparel industry, which necessitated such reduction of staff.

The Employer-Appellant raised a preliminary objection at the Inquiry in the Labour Tribunal that when section 12(1) settlement entered between the Employer-Appellant and Employee-Respondent under the Industrial Disputes Act (IDA), this application cannot be maintained before the Labour Tribunal. The Employer-Appellant led the evidence of Mr. Somasiri Perera and the retired Assistant Commissioner of Labour who had entered the section 12(1) settlement. The retired Assistant Commissioner of Labour gave evidence and produced the following documents.

a) Application made by the Employer-Petitioner to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour for retrenchment of employees (marked 'R1');

b) Section 12(1) orderwhich is signed by the Employee-Respondent (marked 'R2');

c) The minutes of the meeting at which the said section 12(1) order was signed (marked 'R3');

d) The calculation of compensation (marked 'R4').

The retired Assistant Commissioner of Labour in his evidence stated that, both the employer and employees discussed and negotiated the te

Click Here to Read the rest of this document