078-NLR-NLR-V-71-D.L.-CHANDRA-DE-SILVA-Petitioner-and-T.-AMBAWATTA-Respondent.pdf
348
Chandra de Silva v. Ambawatta
1968 Present: Samerawickrame, J., and Wljayatilake, J.L. CHANDRA DE SILVA, Petitioner, and
T.AMBAWATTA, Respondent
S. G. 283/68—Application for Writs in the nature of a Writof Certiorari and/or Mandamus on T. Ambawatta, Chairman,Conciliation Board, No. 1, Oalle
Conciliation Board—Jurisdiction—Requirement of a dispute which arose within theConciliation Board area—Meaning of term “ dispute ”.
A dispute between a member of the Clerical Service stationed and residentwithin a Conciliation Board area in Oalle and the Government of Ceylon actingthrough an Assistant Secretary of the Ministry of Justice who functions inColombo cannot be considered to have arisen entirely within the ConciliationBoard area.
Obiter : A unilateral act, even if it be a wrongful one, cannot be said to be adispute. A dispute involves a controversy between two parties at least andimports conflicting acts and statements by them.
SAMERAWICKRAME, J.—Chandra dt Silva v. Ambawatta349
Al PPLICATION for write of certiorari and mandamus.
R. 8. R. Coomaraswamy, with M. T. M. Sivardeen, V. Nanaydkbaraand M. Borelessa, for the petitioner.
Ananda de Silva, Crown Counsel, as amicus curiae.
Cur. ado. vull.
December 16, 1968. Samerawickrame, J.—
* The petitioner states that he submitted applications Nos. 2394 and2395 to the respondent, who is the Chairman of the Conciliation BoardNo. -1 of Galle, in which applications he set out disputes which hadarisen within the jurisdiction of the paid Conciliation Board of Galle.He further states that the respondent has unlawfully refused to referthe said disputes for inquiry to the Conciliation Board. He appliesfor a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the respondent refusingto refer the complaints contained in his applications to the ConciliationBoard and for a writ of mandamus compelling him to do so.
Mr. E. B. S. R. Coomaraswamy appearing for the petitioner, statedthat his client had filed the applications before the Board not becausehe expected the Board to effect a settlement of the disputes, but inview of the fact that when he filed an action, he might be met with theobjection that his action was bad in the absence of a certificate from theChairman of the panel of the Conciliation Board to the effect that ithas not been possible to effect a settlement:Mr. Ananda de Silva,
Crown Counsel, appearing as amicus curiae, said that the view taken bythe Attorney-General was that the matters set out by the petitioner inhis applications were not such as fell within the purview of theConciliation Board and that an action in respect of those matters couldbe instituted without a certificate from the Chairman of the panel ofConciliators of the Conciliation Board. He further said that the Courtand the petitioner could feel assured that a different position wouldnot be taken up if and when an action was filed.
In Application No. 2395, the petitioner states that the first two personswho were made respondents to his application and who at the relevanttimes held the office of Magistrate, Galle, had issued letters to him calling.upon him to show cause and imposing disciplinary penalties on himthough they had no authority to do so. The petitioner further statesthat he had been called upon by the Assistant Secretary to the Ministryof Justice to show cause why he should not be dismissed or otherwisepunished by notice dated the 12th July, 1967. He states that theAssistant Secretary too has acted without authority.
The 3rd respondent to this application was Her Majesty's Attorney- -General, Colombo. He states that a dispute has arisen between himand the respondents in respect of the said matters referred to above
SCO
Charlis Appu Kapur ala v. Mania Appv
and of his present status as clerk in Grade II of the Executive ClericalClass of the General Clerical Service of the Government.
The issue of letters by the 1st and 2nd respondents and the serviceof notice to show cause by the Assistant Secretary may be consideredto have taken place within the jurisdiction of the Conciliation Boardarea. A unilateral act, however, even if it be a wrongful one, cannotbe considered to be a dispute. A dispute involves a controversy betweentwo parties at least and imports conflicting acts and statements by them.A dispute between a member of. the Clerical Service stationed and residentwithin the Conciliation Board area and the Government of Ceylon actingthrough an Assistant Secretary of the Ministry of Justice who functionsin Colombo, cannot be considered to have arisen entirely within theConciliation Board area. I am, therefore, of the view that the disputeset out in application No. 2395 is not one which the Conciliation BoardNo. 1, Galle, had power to inquire into. In view of this finding, it isunnecessary to consider the elaborate points of law raised and discussedat the argument.
Learned counsel for the petitioner intimated to us, after the argument,that his client does not propose to file an action in respect of the mattersset out in application No. 2394 and that he was not asking for an orderin respect of that matter.
The application is, therefore, dismissed, but in the circumstances.,without costs.
WuayatiIiAKE, J.—I agree.
Application dismissed.