Sri lanka Telecom HR Chief“King of kekille''

Saturday, 14 February 2015 

The controversial vehicle pool  in SLT  is administered by a BSc qualified engineer of A4grade.This engineer is permitted to travel to home and office by a car as per his designation. However he has misused a Montero Sport KE 6829 to travel home on a day in early January 2015 which met with and accident. The gravity of the accident is too heavy leading to condemn the vehicle. The cost of the vehicle seems to be around Rs12.5million and the compensation paid by SLT to the electric pole nocked by the vehicle is Rs 1.2million.

The management of SLT along with the CEO was in a desperate attempt to conceal the fact since it badly humiliates the Engineering Kingdom in SLT which the Trade Unions gave no chance for them to conceal. Finally the engineer was interdicted on misconduct. Subsequently he made a complaint at the criminal investigation department soon after his intrediction after a lapse of over a month from the accident saying that the driver deliberately caused the accident with the intension of a murder as the driver was not in good terms with him. The CID recorded a statement   on duress by the driver  allegedly accusing him on the accident as  caused  due to intoxication  which the driver deliberately have said that he was not intoxicated which there is no such complaint either  in police. This testimony was recorded after a month since theaccident.

Issues developed after the interdiction of the engineer are
1.Engineer’s statement at CID of a death threat is fabricatedstory  as he should do it on the same or following day of the accident if it was the true intension of the driver.

2.If the driver was not in good terms why he opted this driver to drive the vehicle for him. ?
Nevertheless the driver who belongs to the Manpower employment company which is a subsidiary of SLT is been terminated under the condition that “failing to refrain an accident”.

If anybody contemplates on the rule of law, this offence is not penalized under the traffic ordinance in courts. However if SLT wish they could conduct an investigation to ascertain the nature of the accident with the findings of the police to conclude as the accident is a cause of negligence or a natural cause. Until such time he could be permitted to be in service.

When Human Resource is been practiced by an Engineering HR chief, blunders of this nature is inevitable due to executing thedogs job by the donkey.

Further all SLT driver would refrain from driving under these circumstances as the accident caused on the road could be due to the mistake of either party. But here in SLT failing to refrain from an accident is a punishable offence up to the extent of an interdiction. How Stupid the HR is in Sri lankaTelecom.?
One Country One Voice