G. E. PITTER, Petitioner, and D. DAHANAYAKE (President, Labour Tribunal) and 3 o

030-NLR-NLR-V-77-G.-E.-PITTER-Petitioner-and-D.-DAHANAYAKE-President-Labour-Tribunal-and-3-o.pdf


H. N. G. FERNANDO, C.J.—Fitter v. Dahanayake
167
1971 Present: H. N. G. Fernando, C.J., and Sirimane, J.
E. PITTER, Petitioner, and D. DAHANAYAKE (President,Labour Tribunal) and 3 others, Respondents
S.C. 859/70—Application for a Mandate in the nature of a Writof Certiorari and/or Mandamus
Industrial Disputes Act—Application under s. 31 B—Service of noticeto a party—Procedure when notice sent by registered post is notserved—Industrial Disputes Regulations, Regulation 18.
Where an application for relief under section 31B of theIndustrial Disputes Act was dismissed by the Labour Tribunal onthe ground that the applicant was not present on the day of inquiry,after a notice sent by registered post to the applicant about thedate of inquiry had been returned undelivered to the office of theTribunal—
Held, that, when a notice sent to a person by registered post isnot delivered, the Secretary of the Tribunal has a duty underRegulation 36 of the Industrial Disputes Regulations to cause thenotice to be affixed at the entrance to that person’s last knownplace of abode. It is only if a person fails to appear after noticeis effected by that method, that the Tribunal may be entitled todeal with his matter in his absence.
PPLICATION for a Writ of Certiorari and/or Mandamus.
W. E. M. Abeysekera, with M. W. Amerasinghe, for thepetitioner.
K.P. V. Karunaratne, Crown Counsel, for the 2nd respondent.
June 13, 1971. H. N. G. Fernando, C.J.—
The present petitioner had made an application to the LabourTribunal under Section 31 (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act.The matter Was apparently taken up for inquiry, and theTribunal thereafter made the following Order : —
“ The notice sent to the Applicant not being served it hasbeen returned to the office. On the day of Inquiry theApplicant was not present before the Tribunal.
The application is dismissed. ”
168
H. N. G-. 1’ERNAJfDO, C. J •—Pitier v. Dahanayake
As stated in the Order itself, it would appear that notice ofthe date fixed for hearing of the Petitioner’s application had notin fact been served on the Petitioner. The file of the Tribunalshows that a notice sent by registered post to the Petitioner hadbeen returned undelivered to the office of the Tribunal.
The relevant provision as to the service of such notices iscontained in Regulation 36 of the regulations made under theAct. Regulation 36 provides that the service on a person of any
notice, summons under the Act shall be
effected by hand or by registered post or by affixing such notice,
summons at the entrance to his last
known place of abode.
The third method of service prescribed in Regulation 36 is onewhich is prescribed in several other contexts in statute law as analternative to direct service, in cases where direct service is notpossible. It seems to us that when a notice sent by registeredpost is not delivered, the Secretary of the Tribunal has a duty tocause the notice to be served by this third method. It is only ifa person fails to appear after service is effected by that method,that the Tribunal may be entitled to deal with the matter inthe absence of that person.
The Order dismissing the Petitioner’s application is set aside.The Tribunal will take necessary steps to fix a date of hearing,after notice to the proper parties, and to inquire into thePetitioner’s original application.
Sxrxmane, J.—I agree.
Order set aside.