Ceylon Bank Employees Union V. Yatawara

1962 Present : Sansoni, J.

THE CEYLON BANK EMPLOYEES UNION, Applicant,
 and S. B. YATAWARA et al, Respondents

S. C. 4111962-I. D. 306 of 19611 Application for Mandates in the
nature of Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition under Section 42 of
the Courts Ordinance (Cap. 6)

    Industrial Disputes Act No. 43 of 1950, as amended by Act No. 62 of 1957- Sections 4 (2), 22, 24 (1), 24 (3), 26, 27, 33 (1) (b), 36 (5), 36 (6), 40 (1) (p), 43, 46 (3) (b), 47, 48-Dispute between a body of employers and their workmen-Power of Minister to refer it to an industrial court for settlement-Liability of workmen to be punished by employer pending inquiry-" Employer "-" Industrial dispute "-" Trade union "- " Workman "-Public corporation-Constitutional position of public corporation-Difference between a corporation and a Government Department- Liability of Bank of Ceylon to be made a party to an industrial dispute- Finance Act No. 65 of 1961, ss. 2, 5, 8, 10, 11-Certiorari.

    The definitions of the terms " employer ", " industrial dispute ", " trade union" and "workman " in section 47 of the Industrial Disputes Act No. 43 of 1950 do not preclude a Trade Union consisting of several independent employers being made a party to an industrial dispute.

    The definition of " industrial dispute " does not limit a reference under section 4 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act to one which concerns a single employer and his workmen. It includes a dispute involving more than one employer on the one hand and their workmen on the other.

    The Bank of Ceylon did not become a Government Department in consequence of the passing of the Finance Act No. 65 of 1961. A public Corporation, even when it is controlled by a Government Department, is not necessarily a servant or agent of the Crown.
Under section 40 (1) (p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, it is open to an Industrial Court to allow, pending the inquiry into an industrial dispute which has been referred to it for settlement, an application made by the employer for approval of such court to punish workmen who are on strike. But the workmen with regard to whom the approval is being sought must be given notice of the application, in order that they may be heard before the court makes its order on the application.

    On the 30th December 1961 the Minister of Labour and Nationalised Services made an order under section 4 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act No. 43 of 1950 in which he stated that an industrial dispute existed between the Ceylon Bank Employees Union of the one part and the Bank of Ceylon and the Commercial Banks Association (Ceylon) of the other part. By that order, the Minister referred the dispute for settlement to an Industrial Court to be constituted in accordance with section 22 of the Act. There were four matters in dispute, namely, (1) the scale of salaries of the Bank employees, (2) Dearness Allowance on pension, (3) additional seven days leave in lieu of the curtailed Bank holidays, (4) three months leave preparatory to retirement.

Pending the hearing of the dispute the Bank of Ceylon and the Commercial Banks Association applied on  the 12th January 1962 for permission in writing to be granted by the Industrial Court to terminate the services of, or

punish in such other way as the Banks deemed necessary, all or any of the employees who went on strike and who were continuing to strike notwithstanding the reference of the dispute to the Court. On the 27th January 1962 the Industrial Court, after hearing the parties in full, allowed the application.

    On the 7th February the present application for writs of certiorari and prohibition was made by the Ceylon Bank Employees Union. The respondents to it were the three members of the Industrial Court, the Bank of Ceylon, the Commercial Banks Association (Ceylon) and the Minister.

    Held, (i) that there was a valid reference of an industrial d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document