Workmen Who First Seek Other Legal Remedies Barred from Turning to Labour Tribunal- SC

In a recent Supreme Court decision, it was ruled that a workman who has already pursued another legal remedy cannot subsequently seek relief from the Labour Tribunal. This ruling was made in response to a case where an employee, after filing a complaint with the Monaragala Labour Commission, later brought the matter before the Labour Tribunal, alleging constructive termination.

The court highlighted Section 31B(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which clearly states that a workman who first resorts to any other legal remedy is barred from seeking relief from the Labour Tribunal on the same matter. In this instance, the employee had already sought recourse through the Labour Commission, which ordered his reinstatement—a remedy he refused. Despite this, both the Labour Tribunal and the High Court continued to rule on the matter, an action that the Supreme Court ultimately overturned due to lack of jurisdiction.

“….From the above legal jurisprudence, it is clearly understood that it is immaterial whether or not the Respondent had refused the remedy or relief ordered by the Labour Commissioner but what is relevant and would directly affect the jurisdiction of the Labour Tribunal is if the Respondent had already sought some remedy before another forum possessing concurrent jurisdiction with the Labour Tribunal, which in the instant case the Respondent had done. It is clear from the evidence submitted before both the Labour Tribunal and the Provincial High Court that both the Learned President of the Labour Tribunal and the Learned High Court Judge were both well aware of the fact that the Respondent had received such remedy, but yet decide to let it go unnoticed and rule on constructive termination. What both courts have failed to comprehend is that, the Respondent’s conduct of resorting to such other legal remedy has negated the jurisdiction of the Labour Tribunal and disentitles the Labour Tribunal from rendering such an Order in the instant case….” – Justice S. Thurairaja.

The key case law references cited by the Supreme Court in the ruling:

Ceylon Tobacco Co. Ltd v. Illangasinghe (1986) 1 SLR 1
Mendis v. R.V.D.B. (80 CLW 49)
The United Engineering Workers Union v. Devanayagam (69 NLR 289)
Independent Newspapers Ltd v. Commercial and Industrial Workers’ Union (1997) 3 SLR 197
Rodrigo v. Central Engineering Consultancy Bureau SC Appeal 228/2017, SC Minutes of 02 October 2020

CASE NO: SC APPEAL 03/2023 [Decided on 19^th September 2024]

BEFORE: S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J. ACHALA WENGAPPULI, J. AND ARJUNA OBEYESEKERE, J