Bartleet Finance Ltd granted time

Sarath Malalasekera

Court of Appeal Justice A.W.A. Salam granted time to Bartleet Finance Limited to file counter objections on June 21.

The petitioner Bartleet Finance Limited cited Commissioner General of Labour Upali Wijeweera, Commissioner of Labour (Industrial Relations) D. M. S. Dissanayake and Susantha Fernando of Castle Avenue, Colombo as Respondents.

The petitioner through their lawyers Messrs. Paul Ratnayake Associates stated that the second respondent, the Commissioner of Labour (Industrial Relations) has signed on behalf of the first respondent, The Commissioner General of Labour, the purported order dated September 2, 2009, directing the Petitioner Company to pay the third Respondent Susantha Fernando, gratuity in term of the Payment of Gratuity Act No. 12 of 1983 which order is sought to be impugned in this application.

The petitioner states that Susantha Fernando, the third respondent, was formerly the Managing Director of the Petitioner Company in whose favour the said order dated September 2, 2009 has been made.

The petitioner states that Susantha Fernando, the third Respondent in his letter dated March 17, 2009 purports to inform the Chairman of the petitioner Company thus - “ This is to inform you that I returned to Sri Lanka on March 14, 2009. In my absence you have done many illegal and unethical acts which was are inimical to the interests of the Company, its shareholders, depositors, directors and employees and against my status as Managing Director. Since my return, you have instructed the employees of Bartleet Finance not to entertain any requests by me and thereby effectively prevented me from participating in the Management.”

The petitioner also states that it did not thereafter receive any communication whatsoever from the Third respondent and or his lawyers and in the circumstances. Hence they were surprised to that they receive on May 23, 2009, a communication dated May 19, 2009 from Labour Department referring to a complaint received from the third respondent with regard to his gratuity payments.

The third respondent Susantha Fernando in an affidavit to court stated that he denies the averments contained thereof the averments contained thereof and by way of further answer state that to avoid the payment of statutory gratuity due to him the petitioner has made various unfounded allegations against him, for which he was not given an opportunity to show cause during the tenure of his employment.

“I specifically deny the insinuations and the allegations made in the set of documents and state that the said documents had been issued nearly three months after the termination of my services on non disciplinary grounds by issuing a vacation of post notice. Prior to the issue of the vacation of post notice and terminating my services I was not issued with a show cause letter nor was a domestic inquiry held.

Attorneys Palitha Perera and Shirly Fernando appeared for the third respondent Susantha Fernando.