111-NLR-NLR-V-73-THE-GROUP-SUPERINTENDENT-DALMA-GROUP-HALGRANOYA-et-al.-Appellants-and-THE-C.pdf
5?4 ALLES, j.—The Group Superintendent, Dolma Group, Italgranoya t>.
Ceylon Estates Staffs' Union
, 1969PresetU : Alles, J.
THE GROUP SUPERINTENDENT, DALMA GROUP,HALGRANOYA et al„ Appellants, and THE CEYLON ESTATESSTAFFS’ UNION, Respondent
S. C. 71/68—Labour Tribunal/9/1127
Labour Tribunal—Lawful termination of workman’s services—Order that employershould pay compensation for workman's loss of career—Invalidity,
Where the termination of a -workman's services is neither unlawful norcontrary to tho accepted standards of labour practice, a Labour Tribunalhas no power to order tho employer to pay, ex gratia, a sum of money.nscompensation for tho workman’s los3 of career.
Appeal
from an order of a Labour Tribunal.
H. W. Jayewardene, Q.O., with A. M. Coomaraswamy and MarkFernando, for the employer-appellants.•
S. S. llajaralnam, for the applicant-respondent.Jtina 8, 1969. Aixes, J.-^-
. The applicant union, on behalf of one L. R. Perera who was employedas Factory Officer on Glendevon Estate, Halgranoya, applied to theLabour^pribunal for reinstatement and back wages on the ground thatPerera’s services were terminated from 31st May 1967 without validReason.u.-.
ALLES, J.—The Group'Superintendent, Dalma Group, Halgranoya r. 575
Ceylon Estates Staffs’Union
The respondent, who was the Group Superintendent of DelmarGroup and the Anglo-Ceylon and General Estates Limited, in theiranswer stated that the services of Perera were terminated with effectfrom the said date, after due notice, in view of the closing of the factoryat Glendevon. It is not disputed that the factory on Glendevon Estatehad to be closed as an economy measure in order to meet the increasing' expenditure on production and as a result of the amalgamationbetween Glendevon Estate and the adjoining Delmar Group, a number ofemployees in Glendevon Estate became redundant.
All the other officers 1 except Perera found employment on DelmarGroup. Perera himself was offered the post of Senior Assistant FactoryOfficer at Delmar Group which carried a higher salary than what he wasdrawing at Glendevon Estate, but Perera refused to accept the offer onthe ground that he would have to work under a junior officer. It was notpossible for the Estate to offer the Senior Officer’s post to Perera becausehe was not familiar with the type of manufacture known as “ Rotovnnc ”which was used at Delmar Group.
At the time of his retrenchment. Perera was 53 years old and wasdrawing a salary of Rs. 477 C0. He had a period of 16 years service asSenior Factory Officer on Glendevon Estate.
The learned President of the Labour Tribunal has held that the termi-nation of services of the applicant worker has been made for bone fidereasons and that the management was entitled to take measures forcutting down expenditure. He has also held that the respondentCompany made a very reasonable offer of alternative employment, whichthe applicant refused purely on a question of prestige. After holding. that the termination of employment was lawful, the President states“ that he thinks some consideration was due to the applicant in view ofIlls enforced relirement” and made order that the respondents pavex gratia, a sum of Rs. 4,000 as compensation for loss of career.
I am unable to ascertain on what ground the President had grantedcompensation to Perera. Compensation is payable only when a w ronghas been done. In this case no wrong has been done. On the contrary,Perera has been offered very favourable terms of employment with ahigher wage, which he chose to discard on the ground of prestige. Ifprestige has to be reckoned as a factor to be taken into consideration indealing with employer-employee relations, it is not unlikely that theefficient functioning of any industry will be affected, even to the extentof damaging the economy of the country. It is not possible to state inthis instance that the termination of the applicant’s services was eitherunlawful or contrary to the accepted standards of fair labour practice.
In the circumstances, I set aside the order of the President directingthat the respondents pay a sum of Rs. 4,000 as an ex gratia payment ascompensation for loss of career. The appeal is allowed with costs.
Appeal allowed