Mr. Somadasa (the Applicant and subsequently Respondent in High Court) was a printing press worker who was fired by his employer (a printing company) for poor attendance. His union, Eksath Kamkaru Samithiya, challenged the firing in Court, arguing it was unfair.
The lower Courts, the Labour Tribunal and High Court sided with the respondent-applicant, and the printing company appealed to the Supreme Court. (Elmo Rex Lord and Another, Partners, Mercantile Printers and Stationers v. Eksath Kamkaru Samithiya On Behalf of Somadasa – SLR – 161, Vol 1 of 2001 [2001] LKSC 27; (2001) 1 Sri LR 161 (7 March 2001).)
Did the lower courts wrongly assess the evidence about warning letters and how other employees were treated?Even if the Tribunal’s findings were accurate, was the decision still wrong?
Was there enough evidence to support the Tribunal’s findings? The Applicant’s employment letter stated he was on a six-month probation period during which he could be fired without notice for various reasons, including “absenteeism.”
The company sent the Applicant three written warnings about his frequent absences without permission.The warnings stated that continued absences could lead to termination.
Written warnings
Employers can fire employees during probation for reasons stated in the employment contract, such as absenteeism. Even during probation, employers should follow proper procedures, such as providing written warnings.Employees have a right to challenge unfair termination in Court.
While the law protects employee rights, it also expects them to fulfil their duties. This case demonstrates the balance between the rights and responsibilities of employees and employers.
The judgment emphasises that employment law is a two-way street. Employees have rights, but they also have responsibilities. This is reflected in the Sri Lankan Constitution, which states that enjoying rights and freedoms goes hand-in-hand with fulfilling duties and obligations. This includes the responsibility to “work conscientiously” in one’s chosen profession.
The judgment cites two important cases/issues related to employee absence, the first being Colombo Apothecaries Co. Ltd. v. Ceylon Press Workers’ Union ((1974) 75 NLR 182.) This case, involving a compositor similar to the Applicant in this case, established that while employees have leave entitlements, they should not take leave without informing management and avoid disrupting the workplace by repeatedly using leave in a way that affects operations.
The book Employees’ Misconduct (1968) by Alfred Avins ((1968) pp. 5-6)highlights the importance of employee presence at work. Businesses cannot function efficiently if employees come and go as they please, as it makes it impossible to plan tasks and ensure adequate staffing.
Key mistakes
The Supreme Court identified two key mistakes made by the High Court in the lower Court ruling:
The High Court did not properly consider the severity of the Applicant’s (respondent’s) absences, which involved taking leave without permission and disrupting the workplace and therefore misinterpreted the respondent’s absences.Basically, the issue of salary incrementsfor instance was misinterpreted.
The Supreme Court ultimately agreed with the printing company in this case. While acknowledging employee rights, the Court firmly established that employees also have responsibilities, including regular attendance and fulfilling their work duties diligently. The judgment clarifies that employers can take action, including termination, when employees repeatedly demonstrate conduct detrimental to the business, as outlined in the employment contract.
A latter part of the judgment focuses on two key errors identified by the Supreme Court in the High Court’s ruling:
The judgment criticises the High Court for misinterpreting the nature of the respondent’s absences. The relevant excerpt verbatim states:” The High Court, in my view, erred not only in putting a wrong construction on the workman’s absence…”.
This implies that the High Court may have downplayed the severity of the respondent’s absences, which involved taking leave without permission and potentially disrupting the workplace. This potentially led to an inaccurate assessment of the situation. The non-discretionary aspects of certain decesions made by the printing company were ignored.
The judgment punctiliously clarifies a crucial mistake made by the High Court regarding the respondent’s salary increments. Here is the verbatim quote:”Admittedly, in the light of the appellants’ threat in their letter of the 12th of February 1992 to defer Somadasa’s increase in wages unless there was an improvement in his conduct, the payment of the increase in wages might appear to be a recognition of his satisfactory service. However, such an inference was wrong in the circumstances of this case, for the payment of increased wages did not depend on the quality of the employee’s service. Somadasa, as a person employed in the printing trade, was statutorily entitled to a salary increase. (See Sri Lanka Labour Gazette, Vol. 47 No. 1 Jan-March 1996). The payment of enhanced wages was not a matter of discretion for the workman’s employers based on their estimation of his worth or satisfaction with regard to his performance.”
Respondent’s conduct
This paragraph clarifies several key points. While the employer threatened to withhold a wage increase as a consequence of the respondent’s conduct, the payment of the increase did not actually signify satisfaction with his performance.
The respondent, as a printing trade worker, was legally entitled to a salary increase, according to a reference to the Sri Lanka Labour Gazette (Vol. 47 No. 1 Jan-March 1996).Employers cannot use wage increases as a discretionary reward or punishment based on their subjective evaluation of an employee’s performance.
The judgment further rejects the argument presented by the respondent’s lawyer, who claimed that the amount of the increase exceeding the statutory minimum indicated the employer’s satisfaction. The following excerpt emphasizes the irrelevance of the amount in this context:”Learned counsel for the respondent urged that the increases in wages paid to his client greatly exceeded the statutorily prescribed amounts and therefore meant that his employers had not only condoned past lapses but were greatly pleased with his services. I am unable to accept that view in the light of the communications addressed to Somadasa, especially the plain and clearly expressed view that his conduct was ‘intolerable’ whatever other explanation there may have been for payments in excess of the prescribed statutory minimum.”
This clarifies that even if the increase exceeded the minimum requirement, the employer’s clear communication regarding the respondent’s “intolerable” conduct makes their satisfaction irrelevant.
While not the main focus of this section, the judgment also mentions other errors identified by the Supreme Court including High Court’s inability to support its claim that the employer failed to take disciplinary action against other similarly situated employees.
The judgment notes the lack of evidence to support the claim that the respondent’s union affiliation played a role in his termination.By addressing these errors, the Supreme Court ultimatelyoverturned the High Court and Labor Tribunal decisions in favor of the employer.
However Supreme Court refrained from awarding costs in light of the circumstances.
The last section of the judgment highlights the importance of accurate interpretation of evidence and the legal obligations of employers regarding employee compensation. It emphasises that employers can take disciplinary action, including termination, when employees demonstrably engage in conduct detrimental to the business, as outlined in the employment contract, even if they fulfil certain legal entitlements such as wage increases.
