Termination of Employment of
Workmen (Sp.Prov) Act No. 45 of 1971 (TEWA).
·
Applies to scheduled employees; Section 2(1)
which is given at the end of the Act.
-
List is amended by Act No.4. Of 1976.
-
According to the Amendment following employees
are covered by the ACT.
a.
All employees covered by Wages Board Ord.
b.
All employees covered by Shop and Office
employees Act.
c.
Every factory within factories Ord.
Exempted employees;
·
Employees working under employers with less than
15members; Section 3(a).
·
Employees with less than 180 days of service;
Section 3(b). (As amended by Act no. 51 of 1988.)
·
Any workman whose services are terminated in
accordance with a collective agreement where the retirement age is specifically
mentioned in the contract. (Amended by Act no. 4 of 1976).
·
Where government is the employer.
·
Where local government is the employer.
·
Any local authority is the employer.
·
Any co-op society is the employer.
·
Any public corporation is the employer (amended
by no.4 of 1976).
·
Employees who become deployed due to closure of
business.
Consequences of illegal
termination.
·
If employer terminated in contrary to the IDA =
termination is null and void = no effect.
·
Commission has power to restore the employee
with back wages and other benefits he would have been entitled to if his
services were to terminated; Section 6- 1971.
·
Burden of proof is on the employer; Section 7
1988 Amendment.
Compensation Case Law.
Joint District School v Kely
·
Held- Mis-hap or occurrence should be looked at
from employee’s point of view and whatever it cause will be ‘accident’ unless
the cause was designed by the employee.
Dhuskody Thevar v Michael Fernando
·
Carpenter was employed and was given a table and
a cupboard. Carpenter sat on his table to do his normal job and a time bomb
exploded and he died.
·
Held – time and place of explosion was within
employment and therefore death during employment.
Krishna Kutly v Maria Nona
·
Employee a night watcher left place of work for
dinner and on the way met with an accident. He was not given dinner at work.
·
Held- accident was not during employment.
Charlis Appu v Controller of establishment
·
Fight between 2 employees. Held – no connection
to the employment therefore not within employment.
Mailethinon v Peiris
·
Carpenter in Q suffered from a heart condition
he died at work due to heart failure.
·
Held – death due to illness and not related to
employment.
Alisnon v Samarakoon
·
Casual worker engaged in blasting rocks died in
a blast.
·
Held – within employment therefore employer
liable to pay compensation.
Kelaart v Piyasada
·
Employee was required to supply water to
employees who worked on …………… but he was prohibited from climbing …………..as he
was suffering from hernia. One day he climbed to get a chew of betel and fell
and died. Held – not in the course of employment.