IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Application for Writs in the nature of Writ of Certiorari under and in terms of Article 140 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

CA (Writ) Application No:

345/2021 MADULSIMA PLANTATIONS PLC, Hingurugama Complex, Badulla.

PETITIONER Vs.

1. B.K. Prabath Chandrakeerthi, Commissioner General of Labour, Labour Secretariat, PO Box. 575, Colombo 05.

2. D.M. Gamini, Assistant Commissioner of Labour, District Labour Office Badulla, Station Road, Badulla.

3. B.P. Dharmasena, No: 8, Saman Mawatha, Gangula, Pandura. RESPONDENTS Before: M. T. Mohammed Laffar, J.

S. U. B. Karalliyadde, J.

Counsel:

Shivan Cooray for the Petitioner.

Shantha Jayawardena with Ms. Thilini Vidanagamage for the 3^rd Respondent.

Ms. Y. Fernando, DSG for the 1^st and 2^nd Respondents.

Written submissions tendered on:

27.06.2023 by the 3^rd Respondent.

02.10.2023 by the Petitioner.

14.11.2023 by the 1^st and 2^nd Respondents.

Argued on: 18.07.2023 Decided on: 23.01.2024 S.U.B. Karalliyadde, J.

The Petitioner to this Writ Application, Madulsima Plantations PLC (the Petitioner Company) is a duly incorporated Company under the Companies Act, No. 7 of 2007. The 3^rd Respondent was a permanent employee of the Petitioner Company. He joined the predecessor entity of the Petitioner Company namely, Diyagama West Estate Plantation on 01.10.1973 as a Clerk and later elevated to the Post of Financial Controller of the Petitioner Company. Even though he had to retire in 2003 upon reaching the age of 55 years, which is the optional retirement age, on the requests made by the 3^rd Respondent, the Petitioner Company extended his services (as per letters marked as “P2-I” to “P2-P”) from time to time on periodic basis up to 17.09.2008, till he reached the compulsory retirement age of 60 years. By the letter dated 18.08.2008 (marked as P4), the 3^rd Respondent requested the Petitioner Company to arrange and settle his terminal dues to the date of compulsory retirement, on 17.09.2008. Accordingly, the Petitioner Company, by the letter dated 25.08.2008 (marked as P5) informed the 3^rd Respondent to relinquish his duties with effect from 18.09.2008 and collect his terminal dues. In calculating the terminal dues, the Petitioner Company considered the service period of the 3^rd Respondent as from 1973 to 2008 and his terminal salary is Rs. 67,165/-. The gratuity was calculated in terms of the Payment of Gratuity Act, No. 12 of 1983 (as amended) (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). That calculation was certified as correct by the 3^rd Respondent himself as the Financial Controller of the Petitioner Company (P6 and P7). On 18.09.2008, the 3^rd Respondent was paid a sum of Rs. 1,112,571/36 (Rs. 1,074,640/- as the Retirement Gratuity plus Rs. 37,931/36 as the salary for the number of days he worked in September 2008). It was duly acknowledged and accepted by the 3^rd Respondent admitting in writing by the statement dated 18.09.2008 (marked as P8) that he has no other claims against the Petitioner Company.

Thereafter, from 19.09.2008 to 17.09.2018 until he reached the age of 70, on his requests service extensions were granted to the 3^rd Respondent periodically based on ‘Fixed Term Contracts’. The extensions that were given to the 3^rd Respondents are as follows.

By the letter dated 27.06.2014, the 3^rd Respondent requested the Petitioner Company for a further Fixed Term Contract of Employment, subject to a breaking of the