Ceylon Transport Board V. Samastha Lanka Motor Sevaka Samithiya

1963   Present : Sri Skanda Rajah, J.

CEYLON TRANSPORT BOARD, Appellant, and SAMASTHA LANKA
MOTOR SEVAKA SAMITHIYA, Respondent

S. C. 32 of 1961-Labour Tribunal, 3625

Labour Tribunal-Arbitral character of its functions-Validity of appointment of such tribunal by Minister-Ceylon (Constitution) Order in Council, 1946, s. 55-Industrial Disputes Act, No. 43 of 1950 (as amended by Acts 25 of 7956, 62 of 1957 and 4 of 1962), ss. 15A, 24, 31 A, 31B, 31C, 31D, 36 (4), 43 (4), 46 A-Misdirection.

The provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act vest the Labour Tribunals with arbitral power only and not with judicial power. Accordingly, a decision of a Labour Tribunal ordering the re-instatement of a workman and the pay­ment to him of accumulated wages cannot be regarded as invalid merely because the Tribunal was not appointed by the Judicial Service Commission under Article 55 of the Ceylon (Constitution) Order in Council, 1946.

Where a workman who has been dismissed twice by his employer makes a separate application for re-instatement in respect of each dismissal, a Labour Tribunal would be misdirecting itself in law if it takes into consideration the matter of the second application in arriving at its decision in the first-application.

APPEAL from an order of a Labour Tribunal.

G.E. Chitty, Q.C., with Desmond Fernando, for Employer-Appellant.

K. Shanmugalingam, with Prins Gunasekera and M. T. M. Sivardeen, for Applicant-Respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

January 7, 1963.    SRI SKANDA RAJAH, J.-

This is an appeal from the decision of the Labour Tribunal ordering the re-instatement of a workman and the payment to him of accumulated, wages.

The workman, D. S. Randeniya, was employed as an omnibus driver under the Ceylon Transport Board. He was dismissed after inquiry on charges of insubordination. Therefore, the respondent-union, of which Randeniya is a member, applied to the Labour Tribunal on his behalf to have him " reinstated with all privileges and back wages ".

During the pendency of this application the workman was re-employed by the employer-appellant as a lorry driver. He was later dismissed even from that employment on 12.7.1961, and another application dated 10.10.1961 was made to the Labour Tribunal in respect of that dismissal.

In the course of the inquiry into the present application it was admitted by the employers' representative that the inquiry in respect of the first dismissal was not a proper one and that, therefore, " there was no valid dismissal ".

It was agreed at the argument in this Court that when the inquiry by the domestic tribunal was not valid it was open to the Labour Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the facts afresh. That is what happened in this matter. But, though the matter of the second dismissal was not before the Labour Tribunal at this inquiry, it being the subject of another application, the Labour Tribunal proceeded to take that also into consi­deration and held that the second dismissal too was wrong.

Mr. Chitty argued that:

(1) The Labour Tribunal is a body vested with judicial power. Under Article 55 of the Ceylon (Constitution) Order in Council, 1946, such a a body could be validly appointed by the Judicial Service Commission alone. That has not been done. Therefore, the Labour Tribunal is an unconstitutional body and is not competent to make the orders it purported to make, and

(2) Even if this contention fails, the Labour Tribunal has misdirected itself in law in taking into consideration the second dismissal and making an order in respect of that too at the inquiry into the matter of the first dismissal, though a separate application is pending regarding that.

It was not contested that appointment of persons vested with judicial power can be validly made by the Judicial Service Commission alone. Suffice it to mention three cases in which this has been decided :

(1) Senad

Click Here to Read the rest of this document