Ceylon Coconut Producers Co Operative Union Ltd V. Jayakody

1962 Present : T. S. Fernando, J.

CEYLON COCONUT PRODUCERS' CO-OPERATIVE UNION, LTD.
Appellant, and C. JAYAKODY, Respondent

S. C. 14 of 1960-Labour Tribunal Case No. 2/1915

    Workman employed by a registered co-operative society-Bight to apply for reliefs obtainable under Industrial Disputes Act-Co-operative Societies Ordinance (Cap. 124), s. 53-Industrial Disputes Act (Cap. 131), as amended by Act No. 62 of 1957, ss. 31s, 33 (1)-Applicability of maxim Generalia specialibus non derogant.

    Section 53 of the Co-operative Societies Ordinance, which declares that the decision of the arbitrator and/or the Registrar in a certain class of disputes between a registered co-operative society and any employee thereof " shall be final and shall not be called in question in any civil court ", does not oust the jurisdiction of a Labour Tribunal to grant relief to the employee if he is a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, and, as such, chooses to make an application for relief in terms of section 3lB of the Industrial Disputes Act (Cap. 131), as amended by Act No. 62 of 1957. In such a case, the maxim Generalia specialibus non derogant is not applicable.

    In a dispute falling within section 53 of the Co-operative Societies Ordinance the arbitrator or the registrar must decide in accordance with the legal rights of the parties and cannot give the ampler reliefs available to a workman through the machinery of the Industrial Disputes Act.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

page missed

 

 

 

 

 in any civil court". This section came up for consid3ration by the Supreme Court in the case of Sanmugam v. Badulla Co-operative Stores Union, Ltd.1[1(1952)1 54 N. T. R.. 16.] and the Court there held that it had the effect of ousting the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts over a dispute touching the business of a registered society arising between the persons enumerated in the section. The correctness of this decision of the Supreme Court is not doubted, and indeed learned counsel for the respondent advanced his arguments in support of the order on. the basis that this decision, which was not concerned with the Industrial Disputes Act passed after the institution of the action in that case, in no way affects the soundless of his contention that the Labour Tribunal's jurisdiction acquired under Act No. 62 of 1957 and now invoke d by the respondent is not thereby ousted. Relying on the decision of this court in Sanmugam's case (supra), Mr. Jayewardene argued that in the class of disputes contemplated in section 53 the jurisdiction of the arbitrator and/or the Registrar, as the case may be, was exclusive, and could not be taken away except by express words.

     The argument on behalf of the respondent was that the question of any conflict between the jurisdiction of the tribunals contemplated in section 53 of the Co-operative Societies Ordinance and that of the Labour Tribunals established after 1957 und a- Part IV A of the Industrial Disputes Act does not really arise as the powers of the tribunals under the first-mentioned statute are not co-extensive with those of the Labour Tribunal. As an instance thereof, Mr. Jayasuriya contended that under our common law a dismissed servant cannot claim from any court of law a light to reinstatement in employment. "The Court will not decree specific performance of a contract for personal service, or of any contract which it would be impracticable or inexpedient for the Court to enforce specifically"- see Lee and Honore on The South African Law of Obligations, 1950 ed., page 49, section 195. Section 33 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act (as amended) enables a Labour Tribunal, on the other hand, to ord3r reinstatement in employment of an employee who has been discontinue d. A further contention advanced by him was that an arbitrator or the registrar referred to in section 53 of the Co-o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document