SC to inquire into LECO dismissal

Wasantha RAMANAYAKE

COLOMBO: The Supreme Court recently decided to inquire into the alleged rights violations of an employee Lanka Electricity Company that withdrew the letter of appointment as the Human Resources and Administrative Manager given to the employee.

The court after hearing the parties issued an interim order preventing the Lanka Electricity Company (LECO) from appointing any person to the post other than the petitioner until the final determination of the case.

The order was a sequel to an application by the petitioner Dharmaratne Munasinghe of Ragama who was the Personnel Manager of LECO.

The Bench comprised Justice Dr.(Mrs.) Shirani Bandaranayake, Justice Nimal Dissanayake and Justice Saleem Marsoof PC.

President's Counsel Manohara de Silva for the petitioner submitted that he was appointed to the post by ninth respondent General Manager with effect from March 1, but had unlawfully withdrawn the same by a letter dated February 27, purportedly on the advice of the Board of Directors in violation of his rights and legal expectation.

He submitted that his client had successfully covered the duty of the eight respondent as the Human Resources and Administrative Manager for six months without any lapses when the 8th respondent was receiving medical treatment.

The President's Counsel submitted that his next promotion to the post of "Administrative Manager" later redesignated as the "Human Resources and Administrative Manager" for which he had been waiting for 14 years was denied to him first in 1995.

He stated that the Company had illegally appointed the eighth respondent D.W. Amunugama who was less qualified, overage and even did not have the prerequisite when he was appointed to the post of Administrative Manager over and above the petitioner in 1995, in violation of the Policy Guidelines of the Company.

The President's Counsel argued that he had been denied the post for the second time when the respondents withdrew the letter of appointment appointing him to the post.

He submitted that at the time he had applied for the post the petitioner had not completed the project report to qualify for the Diploma in Personnel Management; and therefore, appealed to the Board for time to complete it and he be appointed to the post after the successful completion of the same, which was in line with the practice of the company.

He submitted that accordingly the Board had granted six months time to complete it. He submitted that having successfully completed the Diploma before the stipulated time in December, 2005 the petitioner had informed so to the General Manager.

Thereafter, the General Manager had appointed the petitioner to the post by a letter dated January 20, directing him to take over duties on February 28. He submitted that the respondents had been unlawfully withdrawn the letter of appointment.

The President's Counsel submitted that the respondents had published anonymous applications in the newspapers calling applications from the external candidates on a new scheme for the post without calling for applications from internal candidates, in order to prevent the petitioner from applying for the post, in violation of the policy guidelines of the company as well as the fundamental rights of the petitioner.

Junior Counsel for the respondents Kamran Aziz raised the preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the application. He submitted that the petitioner could not have complained of any breach of fundamental Rights due to executive or administrative since the LECO was a private entity.

The counsel submitted that the Board of Directors of the Company decided to call for the external application since the two internal candidates including the petitioner did not have the required qualifications i.e five years experience and a diploma in Personnel Management.

The counsel submitted that the decision of the Board granting time to complete the diploma was had not held out any assurance that he would be given the post after the completion of the diploma.

He also contended that the General Manager had unlawfully made the appointment without the approval of the Board of Directors.

The Petitioner cited the Lanka Electricity Company (LECO), its Chairman Champani Padmasekera, its Board of Directors, Human Resources and Administrative Manager D.W. Amunugama, the General Manager and the Attorney General as respondents.

The petitioner sought to set aside the decision of the LECO that to withdraw the appointment of the petitioner and to call for applications only from internal candidates.

The petitioner stated that he believed that the senior management of LECO acted with vested interest, must have identified a person personally known to be appointed to the post in order to deprive the petitioner of the opportunity to apply as they did in 1995 by appointing the eighth respondent to the post.

President's Counsel Manohara de Silva appeared for the petitioner.

President's Counsel Mohan Pieris with Kamran Aziz appeared for the respondents. The hearing was fixed for December 13.