JUDGEMENT

K. M. G. H. KULATUNGA, J.

1. The petitioners have preferred this application, inter alia, to quash the award dated 11.09.2020 (P-4), 11.03.2022 (P-8), and the certificate (P- 11), issued by the Commissioner of Labour under and by virtue of Section 8(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, No. 12 of 1983 as amended. The certificate was filed before the Magistrate of Nugegoda, dated 01.10.2022. The Commissioner of Labour, upon conducting an inquiry under the provisions of Act No. 12 of 1983, has issued a notice and certificate directing the payment of gratuity in a sum of Rs. 420,940.00 in total, in respect of three employees named and referred to in the Schedule annexed to P-11, as well as the Schedule referred to in P-4 and P-8.

2. Upon issuing P-8, the notice under Act No. 12 of 1983 on or about 11.03.2022, as the petitioners failed to make payment, the 1^st respondent Commissioner of Labour, filed the said certificate (P-11) under Section 8(1) of the said Act in the Magistrate’s Court of Nugegoda. The learned Magistrate has accordingly issued summons, and the petitioners have shown cause by way of a statement of objections tendered on 16.05.2023.

3. The present application was supported, and formal notice was issued.

The respondents have tendered their statement of objections dated 12.07.2024, supported by an affidavit, with documents R-1 to R-16. The petitioners have then filed their counter-affidavit.

Facts.

4. The certificate is issued to the two petitioners under the name and style of “G.T.A. Service Station”. The 1^st petitioner is the daughter of the 2^nd petitioner. According to the objections, the 2nd petitioner, S. S. Ranjith Fernando, along with two other partners, has registered a business under the name of “General Trade Agency” (P-14). According to P-14, the said registration has been effected or amended on 09.06.2005, and the date of commencement of the business is 17.05.1983. Subsequently, the two petitioners have also registered a business name under the name and style of “G.T.A. Service Station” (P-3). According to P-3, the said registration was made on 13.06.2011, and the date of commencement of the business is 18.05.2006. The certificate P-11 is in respect of three employees who are also named as the 3^rd, 4^th, and the 5^th respondents to this application. According to the schedule annexed to P-11, their details are as follows:

5. Based on these details, the position taken up by the petitioners is that these three employees were not employed by G.T.A. Service Station. In support of which, it is submitted that the date of first employment precedes the date of commencement of the business of G.T.A. Service Station as reflected in P-3, namely 18.05.2006. The sum total of their argument is that, as the date of their first employment is well before the commencement of the said business, these persons could not have been employed during the period as alleged in P-11. On this basis, the objection is that the petitioners engaging in business under the name and style of G.T.A. Service Station is not the employer of the 3rd, 4th, and the 5th respondents referred to in P-4, P-8, and P-11.

6. On that basis, the petitioners are seeking to quash P-4, P-8, and P-11.

As for matters of fact, I myself have perused the totality of the material tendered to this Court. It is apparent that S. S. R. Fernando is a common partner in both businesses, i.e., G.T.A. Service Station and General Trade Agency. The business General Trade Agency, according to the petitioners, was dissolved in 2019. As such, the said business has subsisted up until 2019. Correspondingly, the business of G.T.A. Service Station has been subsisting since May, 2006. In the course of the argument, the learned Counsel for the petitioner