Mayadunne Corea J

The Petitioner, inter alia, sought the following reliefs:

“(c) Grant and issue an order in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari quashing the certificate dated 2020.08.19 issued by the 1^st Respondent marked P12(a)

(d) Grant and issue an order in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari quashing the proceedings in the Baddegama Magistrate’s Court case no. 7504 (e) Grant and issue an order in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari quashing P15 (f) Grant and issue an order in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st, 2^nd and 12^th Respondents or any one of them to hold an inquiry affording the Petitioner a fair hearing in respect of complaints if any made by the 3^rd to 11^th Respondents The facts of the case briefly are as follows. The Petitioner is engaged in the business of granite crushing and runs a metal quarry. The Petitioner states that he retains the services of a sole employee, one Jeevan Kumara, who is properly remunerated and paid all the statutory dues including EPF and ETF payments. In November 2020, the Petitioner had received summons from the Magistrate’s Court of Baddegama pertaining to case no. 7504 instituted by the 1^st Respondent under the Employee Provident Fund Act, No. 15 of 1958 as amended (hereinafter referred to as the ‘EPF Act’). The 1^st Respondent had filed a certificate under section 38(2) of the EPF Act dated 19.08.2020 stating that the Petitioner had employed 3^rd to 11^th Respondents at a land called “Wanapoluhena” (of which the Petitioner’s wife owns an undivided share) and that the Petitioner had failed to pay EPF to the 3^rd to 11^th Respondents for the period from January 2013 to November 2018. However, the Petitioner states that he had never employed the 3^rd to 11^th Respondents at the aforementioned land nor at his metal crusher or metal quarry. Hence, this Writ Application.

The Petitioner’s contention

The Petitioner challenges the acts of the Respondents on the following grounds:

• The Petitioner had not employed the 3^rd to 11^th Respondents.

• The Petitioner is not involved in the administration of the land called “Wanapoluhena”.

• No inquiry was held by the 1^st and 2^nd Respondents in respect of the complaints made by the 3^rd to 11^th Respondents.

• The Petitioner was not afforded a hearing prior to the issuance of the certificate under section 38(2) of the EPF Act. Thereby depriving the Petitioner of a fair hearing.

The Respondents’ contention

The Respondents raised the following objections:

• The Petitioner is guilty of laches.

• The Petitioner has suppressed or misrepresented facts.

Analysis After the conclusion of arguments, both Counsel moved that they may be permitted to file written submissions. The said application was allowed by this Court. When this case was mentioned on 29.08.2025, both Counsel submitted that they will be filing their respective written submissions at the registry on that day. Accordingly, the judgement was adjourned to 30.10.2025. I find that the learned Counsel for the Petitioner had filed written submissions on 29.08.2025. There were no written submissions filed by the State Counsel until 28.10.2025 and I find a written submission had been filed well past the date given for written submissions on 27.10.2025 which is just three days before the pronouncement of the judgement. It is also pertinent to note that the arguments in this case were concluded on 14.07.2025 and I find with the written submissions two new documents marked as R1 and R2 annexed. I also find the said documents are dated 30.07.2025 which means that the said documents have been written even after the conclusion of the arguments. Hence, the said documents were not before the Court at the time of argument and the Petitioner would not be in a position to answer the said documents. This Court does not consider this a healthy practice and accordingly, decides not to consider the said documents.

After a careful analysis of the argument made by all parties, in my view, the Petitioner’s whole case is based on tw