NESTLE LANKA PLC

Vs.

RAJAPAKSHE

SUPREME COURT
JAYASURIYA, C.J.
DEHIDENIYA, J.
THURAIRAJA, J.
SC/HC/LA/54/2018
HCA LT/86/2016
LT 21/95/2012
OCTOBER 31, 2019, FEBRUARY 28, MAY 15, 2020

Leave to appeal-Industrial Disputes Act, No. 43 of 1950, section 31DD-High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act, No. 19 of 1990, sections 3 and 10-Supreme Court Rules of 1990, rules 2, 6 and 8-Preliminary objection on non-compliance with the Rules-Tender of material at a later stage

The respondent successfully challenged the dismissal of his services by the petitioner before the Labour Tribunal. On appeal, the High Court affirmed the order. The petitioner filed an application for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court from the order of the High Court in terms of section 31 DD of the Industrial Disputes Act, No. 43 of 1950, as amended, read with sections 3 and 10 of the High Court of the Provinces (Special

Provisions) Act, No. 19 of 1990. The respondent moved to dismiss the application in limine on the basis that the petitioner failed to comply with Rules 2, 6 and 8 of the Supreme Court Rules of 1990. This was resisted by the petitioner inter alia on the basis that the Rules pertaining to special leave to appeal applications apply to orders, judgments, decrees and sentences of the Court of Appeal only and not to judgments of the High Court established under Article 154P of the Constitution.

Held:

1. Article 136 of the Constitution leaves it to the Supreme Court to make Rules regulating the practice and procedure of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal.

2. Part 1A of the Rules does not contain a specific provision restricting its applicability to orders and judgments of the Court of Appeal. It does not exclude the applicability of the Rules to orders and judgments of the High Court or any other court. The absence of any specific reference in the Rules to appeals from the High Court does not render the Rules inapplicable to such appeals.

3. The Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, No. 32 of 1990, and the High Court (Special Provisions) Act, No. 19 of 1990, together with the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court make it clear that there was no legislative intent to bring in any change to the final appellate jurisdiction exercised by the Supreme Court against orders of the Labour Tribunal.

4. The procedural laws are significant and important. The substantive law lays down rights, duties, powers and liberties; the procedural law applies to the enforcement of such rights and duties.

5. When a petitioner prays for permission to tender necessary material at a later stage he is deemed to have complied with Rule 2 if he satisfies the court that he has exercised due diligence and that the failure to tender the same is due to circumstances beyond his control.

Cases referred to:

1. Rambanda v. People's Bank (SC/SPL/LA/229/11, SC Minutes of 17.07.2014)
2. Aaron Senarath v. The Manager Moray Estate and another (SC/SPL/LA 231/2015, SC Minutes of 19.01.2017)

3. Sudath Rohana and another v. Mohamed Zeena and another [2011] 2 Sri LR 134 at 144-145
4. Udaya Shantha v. Jeevan Kumarathunga and others 2012 BLR 129 at 133
5. K. Reaindran v. K. Velusornasunderan (SC/SPL/LA/298/99, SC Minutes of 07.02.2000)
6. N.A. Premadasa v. The People's Bank (SC/SPL/LA/212/99, SC Minutes of 24.02.2000)
7. Hameed v. Majibdeen and others (SC/SPL/LA/38/2001, SC Minutes of 23.07.2001)
8. K.M. Samarasinghe v. R.M.D. Ratnayake and others (SC/SPL/LA/51/2001, SC Minutes of 27.07.2001)
9. Soong Che Foo v. Harosha K. De Silva (SC/SPL/LA/184/2003, SC Minutes of 25.11.2003)
10. C.A. Haroon v. S.K. Muzoor and others (SC/SPL/LA/158/2006, SC Minutes of 24.11.2006)
11. Woodman Exports (Pvt) Ltd v. Commissioner General of Labour (SC/SPL/LA/335/2008, SC Minutes of 13.12.2010)
12. Tissa Attanayake v. Commissioner General of Elections [2011] 1 Sri LR 220
13. Samantha Niroshana v. Senarath Abeyruwan (SC/SPL/LA/145/2006, SC Minutes of 02.08.200