T. B. D. RUMBLAN, Appellant, and THE CEYLON PERESS WORKERS’ UNION, Respondent

106-NLR-NLR-V-75-T.-B.-D.-RUMBLAN-Appellant-and-THE-CEYLON-PERESS-WORKERS’-UNION-Respondent.pdf

DE KRETSER, J.—Sumblan v. Ceylon Press Workers’ Union
675
1971Present: de Kretser, J.
T.B. D. RUMBLAN, Appellant, and THE CEYLON PRESSWORKERS’ UNION, Respondent
S. O. 78 of 1969—L. T. 219896
Industrial Disputes Act—Lawful dismissal of a workman—Whether compensationcan be awarded to him.
Where the dismissal of a workman who has caused continuing loss to bisemployer is justified, no compensation can be awarded to him by a LabourTribunal.
A.PPEAL from an order of a Labour Tribunal.
R. L. Jayasuriya, for the employer-appellant.
Nimal Senanayake, with Nihal Singaravelu, for the applicant-respondent.
Cur. adv. tmU.
June 10, 1971. de Kretser, J.—
The Ceylon Press Workers’ Union filed an application in the LabourTribunal on the 18th of March, 1964, on behalf of S. A. Romiel, who hadbeen a “ Cylinder cum Plating Machine Minder ” in the employ of theA & R Trading Company, complaining that he had been dismissed on21.2.64 “ without notice or any justifiable reason ” and praying for—
reinstatement with back wages;
such other and further relief that the Tribunal shall seem meet.
The application was inquired into by the President on 21.6.68 and thelawyer for the applicant, who neither gave nor called evidence, closedthe case “seeking for a reasonable compensation to the workmanconcerned.” The President reserved his order which was not delivereduntil 21st May, 1969. He held that the dismissal of the workman wasjustified but considered that in the exercise of his right to make a justand equitable order, he had to accede to the request that there shouldbe an award of compensation. Taking the contract of employmentA1 as a guide to the measure of damages, he ordered compensationin Rb. 1,200. The Respondent-Company has appealed from thisorder.
670
DE KRETSER, J.—Rumblan v. Ceylon Press Workers’ Union
It appears to me that perhaps due to the long lapse of time betweenhearing and judgment, the President had lost sight of the fact that theevidence was that the damage which the applicant had caused to themachine which resulted in his dismissal was one that would causecontinuing loss to the respondent, and that therefore it would be neitherjust nor equitable to give the person who had caused such damagecompensation. The President was apparently not familiar with thedecision reported in 1954 (1) L. L. J. 805, the case of The Equitable CoalCompany, Limited v. Alugusing and another1, where it was held thatwhere the dismissal or damage is proper and justified, no compensationcan be awarded.
The appeal is allowed, with costs payable to the applicant.
Appeal allowed.
11954 (I) L. L. J. 805.