JATHIKA SEVAKA SANGAMAYA VS. SRI LANKA HADABIMA AUTHORITY

JATHIKA SEVAKA SANGAMAYA
VS.
SRI LANKA HADABIMA AUTHORITY  

SUPREME COURT
EVA WANASUNDARA. PC J.
SISIRA DE ABREW J.
PRlYANTHA JAYAWARDENA, PC J.
SC AP 15/2013
CP/HCCA/KAN/61/2011
LT 3/104- 108/2005
FEBRUARY 26, 2015.

Industrial Disputes Act, 43 of 1950 - Unlawful Termination dented - Service terminated by reason of a Cabinet Decision - State Agricultural Corporations Act, No. 11 of 1972 - Section 6 - National Agricultural Diversification and Settlement Authority (NADSA) - Constitution Article 3, 4 Article 170, 114 -Separation of Powers - 19th Amendment - Article 111 (C) (1) - Judicial power - Judicial Officer? - Act or decision to interfere with Judicial power - Ultra Vires - Just and equitable order.

The applicant - appellant alleging that the services of five members of Sangamaya were wrongfully terminated, invoked the Jurisdiction of the Labour Tribunal. The Respondent authority contended that the services were terminated due to changes made to the regulations of the Respondent authority in accordance with a decision of the Cabinet of Ministers dated 02.03.2005 - Circular 27/2001 and consequently all the appointments made with effect from 01.10.2001 became invalid and hence such appointments were terminated with effect from 01.06.2005 and as such did not amount to unlawful. termination The Labour Tribunal delivered its order in favour of the Respondent - and the High Court in appeal affirmed the said order.

In appeal it was contended by the Appellant Sangamaya, that in terms of Section 2 of National Agricultural Diversification and Settlement Authority (NADSA) established under section 2 of the State Agricultural Corporations Act 11 of 1972 - and was later assigned the name - Haritha Danau Bim Sanwardena Madyama Adhikanya - and in terms of Section 2 is a body corporate having perpetual succession - and the general supervision is vested with the Directors and there is no provision for the Cabinet of Ministers to give directions to the Adhikariya (Authority) - and that the Authority is an independent entity that is not subject to the control of the Cabinet of Ministers.

Held:

(1) There are three distinct functions involved in a Government of a State -legislative executive and judicial functions. Those three organs are constitutionally of equal status and also independent from one another. One organ should not control or interfere with the powers and functions

of another branch of Government and should not be in a position to dominate the others.

The Doctrine of separation of powers is enshrined in Article 4 rend with Article 3 of the Constitution - Article 3 is linked with article 4.

(2) Judicial Officer is interpreted so as to include the President of a Labour Tribunal as well. In terms of Article 114 of the Constitution - President of the Labour Tribunal is appointed by the Judicial Service Commission. It is enshrined in Article 116 of the Constitution which recognizes the independence of the Judiciary, certain safeguards which enable judicial officers to perform their powers and functions without any interference.

(3) Article 111 C of the Constitution is a manifest intention to ensure the judiciary is free from interferences whatsoever. Labour Tribunals exercise the judicial power of the State within the meaning of Article 4 of the Constitution, when it exercises its powers under the Industrial Disputes Act No. 43 of 1950 as amended.

(4) Any act or decision to interfere with judicial power is outside the competence of the legislature and the executive and are inconsistent with the separation of powers between executive, legislature and judiciary enshrined in the Constitution and such Acts or decisions are ultra vires and has no force or power in law.

Per Priyantha Jayawardhena PC J,

"Hence, it is not possible to oust the jurisdiction of the Labour Tribunals or Courts by a decision of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document