092-NLR-NLR-V-70-CEYLON-TRANSPORT-BOARD-Appellant-and-N.-M.-J.-ABDEEN-Respondent.pdf
ALLES, J.—Ceylon Transport Board v. Abdeen
407
1968Present : Alles, 3.
CEYLON TRANSPORT BOARD, Appellant, and
N.M. J. ABDEEN, Respondent
S. C. 106167—Labour Tribunal, 10 /161
Labour Tribunal—Misdirection on facts—Right of appeal—“ Question of law ”—Industrial Disputes Act, s. 31 D (2).
Where the President of a Labour Tribunal misdirects himself on the facts,such misdirection amounts to a question of law within the meaning of section31D (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Appeal from an order of a Labour Tribunal.
N.Satyendra, for the Employer-Appellant.
No appearance for the Applicant-Respondent.
January 30, 1968. Alles, J.—
This was an application by the Ceylon Transport Board to terminatethe services of the applicant-respondent who was a conductor employedunder them. The allegation against the applicant-respondent was
408
ALLES, J.—Ceylon Transport Board v. Abdeen
that he altered figures in tickets issued by him and committed misap-propriation of various sums of money. At the domestic inquiry thatwas held by the employer the applicant pleaded guilty to the fabricationof these documents and the misappropriation of these monies, and theapplicant’s services were terminated with one month’s wages. There-after the applicant made an application to the Labour Tribunal againstthe order made by the Transport Board.
The President ordered the Transport Board to reinstate the applicantwith effect from 21st August, 1967, and directed that no back wagesshould be paid to him. In the course of the inquiry evidence was ledof the past record of the applicant. The Depot Operating Assistant,Mr. Wimalasena, gave evidence and it was established through his evidencethat up to 1966 the applicant had been guilty of various lapses for whichho was punished. This evidence was not considered by the Presidentin the course of his order ; the accused did not give evidence to contradictthe evidence of Wimalasena and documents R4 and R6 were placed beforethe Labour Tribunal to prove that the accused had pleaded guilty to hisprevious lapses. The President completely failed to consider thisevidence. In the course of his order he has in the penultimate para-graph of his order stated : “In my view there is something more to thecase than what was told before me. This applicant was taken as goodup to August, 1966. But suddenly somebody appears to have had adislike for him and has gone in a voyage as it were to pinpoint themistakes of this applicant. ”
It is in pursuance of these observations that the President has takenthe view that the punishment meted out to the worker wras excessiveand that the termination was unreasonable.
The President has clearly misdirected himself on the facts and thismisdirection amounts to a question of law. Under Section 31 D (2) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act this is an order which is properly reviewableby this Court. I therefore set aside the order of the President and Idirect that the order made by the Transport Board terminating theservices of the applicant was justified.
The appeal is therefore allowed, and the order of the President isset aside.
Appeal allowed.