Shanmugam v. Maskeliya Plantations Limited – sllr 1996 volume 1 page 208

In the case between Shanmugam (appellant) and Maskeliya Plantations Limited (respondent), the court addressed whether the refusal to grant a fourth extension of service to the appellant was justified in light of the Industrial Disputes Act, specifically section 17(1), which requires an award to be “just and equitable” and not approached solely as a contractual matter. The findings established that the arbitrator and the Court of Appeal erred by focusing on a question of contractual right, disregarding the equitable statutory mandate. It was determined that the rejection of the appellant’s fourth extension of service, communicated via letter P6, was arbitrary and unreasonable. As a result, the award against the appellant was quashed and the decision of the Court of Appeal was set aside, rea