029-NLR-NLR-V-63-THE-ELECTRIC-EQUIPMENT-AND-CONSTRUCTION-CO.-Appellant-and-M.-J.-F.-COORAY-Res.pdf
164 M. N. G. FERNANDO, J.—Electric Equipment and Construction Co. v. Cooray
1961Present: H. N. G. Fernando, J.THE ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION CO.,Appellant, and M. J. E. COORAY, Respondent
S. C. 13—Industrial Tribunal, 1562
Industrial Disputes Act—Termination of employment—Employee can claim onlywhat is legally due from employer.
Where the termination of an employee’s services is both legal and justifiable,a Labour Tribunal has power to award, not any benefit or compensation whichit may consider equitable, but only a gratuity or other benefit legally dueto the employee.
Richard Pieris tfe Co., Ltd. o. Wijesiriwardene (1960) 62 N. L. R. 233, followed.
Appeal from an order made by a Labour Tribunal.
Joseph St. George, for employer-appellant.
R. L. N. de Zoysa, for applicant-respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
May 22, 1961. H. N. G. Fernando, J.—
The respondent to this appeal, who was dismissed from his employmentunder the appellant on 21st December 1959, applied to the LabourTribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act for an order that he be paidthree months’ salary in lieu of notice and a Christmas bonus for theyear 1959, in addition to other reliefs. The appellant had paid onemonth’s salary at the time of dismissal hut was ordered by the tribunalto pay a further two months’ salary in lieu of notice as well as the amountof the usual Christmas bonus. Against this order the appellant hasappealed to this Court.
The tribunal’s findings on the facts are that the respondent was guiltyof disobedience to a lawful order of the employer and that the respondent’sservices were terminated for justifiable reasons. The contention forthe appellant has been that upon these findings the tribunal had nojurisdiction to award to the respondent any relief other than that towhich he was entitled at the time of his dismissal in terms of the con-tract between the parties. The contract expressly provides that therespondent’s appointment may be terminated on one month’s noticeand further that no Provident Fund or Gratuity Schemes is applicablein the case of his appointment.
Kanagarainam v. Karthigesit
165
I respectfully agree with, the reasons given by my brother T. S. Fernandoin Richard Pieris & Co., Ltd. v. Wijesiriivardena1 for the view that wherethe termination of the employment is, as it was in the present case, bothlegal and justifiable, a Labour Tribunal has power to award, not anybenefit or compensation which it may consider equitable, but only agratuity or other benefit legally due to the employee. The respondentwas not entitled under his contract to any bonus whatsoever or toanything more than one month’s notice of termination. This latterrequirement of the contract has been fulfilled by the payment to him ofone month’s salary in lieu of notice. The order appealed from is setaside and the respondent will pay to the appellant Rs. 31/50 as costsof this appeal.
Order set aside.