219
COCONUT RESEARCH BOARD
v.
FERNANDO
SUPREME COURT
FERNANDO, J.
PERERA, J.
WIJETUNGA, J.
S.C. APPEAL NO. 2/93
H.C. NEGOMBO NO. 8/91
Industrial Dispute -
Jurisdiction of the Provincial High Court in Appeals from the L. T. - Constitution,
Article 154 P (3) (c) - High Court (Special Provisions) Act No. 19, of 1990,
Section 4.
The Applicant-Respondent filed an application to the Labour
Tribunal in July, 1987. The employer-appellant filed the answer in September,
1987. Both documents referred to the "Labour Tribunal" but did not further
describe the Labour Tribunal. The parties were resident/situated within the
Proceedings were held by the President, Labour Tribunal -
Negombo, sitting at Chilaw. In the course of the proceedings an order was made
on a preliminary objection and the caption of the order read "In the
Labour Tribunal No. 21 - Circuit Chilaw". In the final order made on
26.5.91 it was captioned "Labour Tribunal 21 - Negombo" without
reference to circuit Chilaw: On 1.8.1991 the President made a correction to the
earlier order but again as "President, Labour Tribunal Negombo."
The employer-appellant appealed from the said order to the
Held:
Under Article 154 P(3) (c) of the Constitution Parliament was empowered to confer additional jurisdictions and powers on the High Court for the Province. Under Act No. 19 of 1990 the High Court for the Province was granted appellate
220
Jurisdiction in respect of orders made by the Labour Tribunals
within that Province. Section 4 confers the right on the party aggrieved by an
order of the Labour Tribunal to appeal to the High Court for the province
within which such Labour Tribunal is situated. Also the Industrial Disputes
(Amendment) Act No. 32 of 1990 gives the right of appeal to the High Court for
the Province within which the Labour Tribunal concerned was situated. Thus the
statutory provision refers to the province within which the tribunal is
'situate'.
'Situation' is far more appropriate to refer to the physical
location of the Tribunal rather than to some other place where the President
happened to exercise some of his functions on a particular occasion. Further
the Tribunal also described itself as the Labour Tribunal, Negombo, in its
order.
Therefore the order made in the present case having been
made by Labour Tribunal, Negombo, comes within the jurisdiction of the High
Court of the
Case referred to:
Jafferjee v. Subramaniam (1969) 71 NLR 518
APPEAL from order of the District Court
Asoka de Silva D.S.G.
with R. Nawinne S.C. for employer-appellant.
A. D. de Silva
with Namal Punchihewa and
Cur adv vult.
June 28th, 1993.
FERNANDO, J.
The applicant-respondent filed an application to the Labour
Tribunal in July, 1987 and the employer-appellant filed its answer in
September, 1987. Both documents referred to the "Labour Tribunal" but
did not further describe the Labour Tribunal. The applicant-respondent was
resident, and the employer-institution was situated, within the
221
an order was made on a
preliminary objection, and the caption to that order reads "In the Labour
Tribunal No. 21 - circuit at Chilaw" and was signed by the President as
'Labour Tribunal No. 21 - circuit at Chilaw". It was apparently delivered
at Chilaw on
Under Article 154P(3) (C) Parliament was empowered to confer additional jurisdictions and powers on the High Court for the Province. Under the High Court (Special Provisions) Act No. 19 of '90, the High Court for the Province was granted appellate jurisdiction in respect of orders made by the Labour. Tribunal within that province. Section 4 conferred the right on the party aggrieved by an order of the Labour Tribunal to appeal to the High Court for the province within which such Labour Tribunal is situated. Similarly by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act No. 32 of 1990 the right of appeal was given to the High Court for the province within which the Labour Tribunal concerned was situated. Mr. A. A. de Silva for the applicant contends that in determining where the Tribunal was situated, for the purpose of these provisions, one has to take into account firstly, the fact that the Labour Tribunal has all-island jurisdiction; (Jafferjee v. Subramaniam (1) ); secondly the place of residence of parties, and thirdly the place where the President functions (and in this case, the fact that all the evidence was
222
recorded in
Chilaw). He further submits that the purpose of Article 154 P was to enable
parties to have their dispute finally adjudicated in the Province in which they
reside. He therefore submits that the Tribunal whose order is challenged in
this case could be regarded as having been situated in Chilaw.
We are unable to uphold that submission. The statutory
provisions refer to the Province within which the Tribunal is 'situate'. We
must assume that the legislature intended to refer to some definite easily
ascertainable, factor rather than a vague or indeterminate factor. 'Situation'
is far more appropriate to refer to the physical location of the Tribunal (and
its office) rather than to some other place where the President happened to
exercise some of his functions on a particular occasion; it refers to a
permanent physical link, rather than to a transient or temporary presence in a
place. For instance, if pleadings were filed in one place, and the proceedings
took place in two or three other locations, and the order was made in yet
another place, there would be a considerable difficulty in determining where
the Tribunal was 'situated; if situation was intended to refer to the place
where it exercised its functions.
There is also the important consideration that the Tribunal
in its order described itself as the Labour Tribunal Negombo
In these circumstances it is clear that the order made in
the present case was made by the Labour Tribunal at Negombo; that the Tribunal
was situated within the Western Province; and that the High Court Western
Province functioning at Negombo, had jurisdiction to determine the appeal. The
order of the High Court holding that it had no jurisdiction is set aside.
Counsel do not- wish us to adjudicate upon the merits of the case, on which we
therefore express no view. The High Court for the
Appeal allowed.