Archives

LT dismisses garment industry employees' case 

No right to ignore legitimate decision

by Kumar Wethasinghe

The Labour Tribunal President and Additional Magistrate Sobitha Dharmawansa dismissed applications made on behalf of ten garment industry employees when they failed to establish that their services were wrongfully terminated by their employer.

The Tribunal also upheld the submissions made by the counsel Mohamed Adamaly, who appeared for the respondent Victor Quilts (Pvt) Ltd, Dehiwala, that, "the employees should not take the law into their hands. Blunt refusal to carry out management's decision is not the workers' right to dissent but to "comply and complaint" is more a legitimate way to express their protests and dislikings."

In their applications, ten applicants from Dehiwala, Nugegoda and Boralesgamuwa areas submitted that they were employed at the said garment industry at Dehiwala were arbitrarily, wrongfully and unlawfully terminated from their services over an issue involving of wearing a uniform during duty hours.

The respondent company had denied all allegations pertaining to the termination except in the case of one Neela Kumari, who had submitted her letter of resignation. The respondent further maintained that the applicant's had no Locus Standi in the case.

By way of written and oral submissions, they submitted that they were engaged in garment export trade and were aiming to obtain ISO 9002. In order to achieve that status, it was required to provide uniforms to all employees.

The ten applicant girls were attached to the 'Sample Room' and worked with a team of 30 machine operators and five others. According to a management's decision, they were provided uniform material and other facilities to wear uniforms. Beginning 10.5.99, the applicants had refused to wear uniforms despite repeated requests and were given a final warning on 12.6.99. Thereafter, they were given the option either to report for duty in uniforms or keep away, and had reported for duty.

However, the applicants alleged that they were orally informed to have been terminated from the service.

The Tribunal on perusal of all evidence became evident that the question of termination and the entire problem were based on the refusal to wear uniforms by the ten applicants.Also the purpose of issuing uniforms had been to ensure the safety and the identity of the employees and for the betterment of the company in order to achieve ISO 9002 standards.

It was further apparent that suspension from service until uniforms are worn was merely a management's decision and by that, no termination had been effected by the respondent. The wearing of uniforms was prima facie a legitimate action taken to promote the business and workers' welfare. Normally disciplinary action is initiated against insubordination etc.

but in this instance, the respondents had given the choice to the employees either to wear uniforms and report for duty or decide otherwise.

Their keeping away as a protest against an illegal or harmful decision by the management could be treated as legal.However, in these circumstances, the applicants have failed to establish that the respondent took action to wrongfully and unlawfully terminate their services as machine operators.

Mohamed Adamaly with Balendra Associates appeared for the respondent. N. Ranaweera appeared for the ten applicants.

www.crescat.com

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries |

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager