KARUNAWATHIE
VS.
PEOPLE'S BANK & OTHERS

COURT OF APPEAL
CHITRASIRI, J.
DEHIDENIYA.J
CA 863/2010 (WRIT)
JULY 25, 2013
SEPTEMBER 06, 2013
MARCH 12, 2015.

Writ of Certiorari/Mandamus - Part of gratuity retained - Does a Writ lie to compel the Authority to pay the balance? - Rules of Natural Justice - No format inquiry - Does a Writ lie when other remedial measures are in place for an aggrieved party?

The Petitioner sought a Writ of Certiorari/ Mandamus to compel the Respondent Bank to release the balance part of the retirement Gratuity which had been retained by the Bank.

Respondent Bank contended that no Writ lies and the Petitioner and two other employees had allegedly permitted withdrawal of funds that was kept as security for a particular facility given by the Bank. The monies released have not been recovered and further that there is an alternative remedy available to the Petitioner for relief.

The complaint was that the Bank has violated the rules of natural justice since it had failed to hold a formal inquiry before the decision taken to retain part of the gratuity.

Held:

[1] Payment of Gratuity emanates from the contract of employment. It is an agreement between two parties even though one of them is a Public enterprise No public duty is cast upon the Respondent Bank in this instance The Petitioner is not entitled to have the Writ issued.

[2] The Petitioner being an employee of the Respondent Bank could have sought relief from the Department of Labour or made an application under the Pension Fund Rules that were available to her.

Per Chitrasiri, J.

"It is trite Law that the Courts do not incline to issue Writs when other remedial measures are in place to seek relief, in such a situation that party who is aggrieved by a decision made by the authorities should first exhaust those other measures available and then come to Courts for redress

AN APPLICATION for a Writ of Certiorari/Mandamus.

Cases referred to:

1. Weligama Multi - Purpose Co-operative Society Ltd Vs. Chandradasa Daluwatta -1984 1 SLR 195
2. Chandradasa Vs. Wijeratne 1982 1 SLR at 413
3. Jayaweera Vs. Wijeratne 1985 2 SLR at 413
4. Siva Kumar Vs. Director General of Samurdhi Authority of Sri Lanka and another - 2007 1 SLR 96
5. Gawarammana Vs. The Tea Research Board and another 2003 3 SLR 120.
6. Ranaweera Vs. Mahaweli Authority of Sri Lanka and another 2004 2 SLR at 346
7. Mahanayake Vs. Chairman Ceylon Petroleum Corporation and other 2005 2 SLR at 193
8. Hendrick Appuhamy VS. John Appuhamy 69 NLR at 32

Y.L. Edward Goonethilake with W.A.N. Alwis and Lahiru N. Silva for the Petitioner

Manoli Jinadasa with S. Senanayake and A.Wijesekara for the 1st to 5th Respondents

Cur.adv.vult.

May 12, 2015.

CHITRASIRI, J.

This is an application seeking inter alia to have a writ of certiorari issued on the respondents directing them to quash the decision made by the 4th respondent by which the respondents withheld a part payment of the gratuity amounting to Rs. Three Hundred Thirty Seven Thousand Five Hundred (337,500/) being paid to the petitioner. The said decision is found in the letter dated 26.03.2008, marked as P5 filed with the petition The petitioner also has sought for a writ of mandamus compelling the respondents to pay her the said Rs. 337,500/- alleged to have been a part

of the retirement gratuity of the petitioner that had been retained by the respondents.

In paragraph 10 of the petition the petitioner has averred that the 4th respondent has decided to retain Rs. 337,500/- out of the gratuity payment due to her without holding a preliminary or formal inquiry. She also has alleged that the respondents have not even followed the Rules of Procedure laid down in the People's Bank Code of Disciplinary Rules contained in the circular bearing No. 326/2002, marked P6, when the 1st respondent Bank decided to withhold a part of her gratuity, having violated the rules of natural justice A