IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an appeal in terms of Section 11 of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provinces) Act No. 19 of 1990 read with Article 154P (6) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

Commissioner of Labour, Department of Labour, CA No. CA/PHC/0276/2019 Kalutara.

PHC Case No. Re 23/2017 COMPLAINANT MC KALUTARA Case No. 59678 v.

Rammuni Thilak Udayashantha, Waellabada, Waskaduwa.

RESPONDENT AND Rammuni Thilak Udayashantha, Waellabada, Waskaduwa.

RESPONDENT-PETITIONER v.

Commissioner of Labour, Department of Labour, Kalutara.

COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Rammuni Thilak Udayashantha.

Waellabada, Waskaduwa.

RESPONDENT-PETITIONER-APPELLANT v.

Commissioner of Labour, Department of Labour, Kalutara.

COMPLAINANT – RESPONDENT –

RESPONDENT BEFORE : M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne J. &

M. Ahsan. R. Marikar J.

COUNSEL : Eranga Gunarathna for the Respondent –

Petitioner - Appellants.

Zuhri Zain, D.S.G. for the Complainant –

Respondent - Respondent.

ARGUED ON : 09.07.2024 DECIDED ON : 13.09.2024 M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne J.

Introduction This appeal is filed by the Appellant challenging the judgment delivered by the learned High Court Judge of Kalutara on 21^st November 2019, in Revision application No. WP/HC/KT/REV/23/2017. In that application the Appellant sought to overturn the Order of the learned Magistrate of Kalutara, dated 8^th September 2017, in Case No. 59678.

Relevant facts The Complainant-Respondent-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the "Respondent"), the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, filed a certificate, [At page 123 of the Appeal brief.] in the Magistrate's Court of Kalutara under Section 38(2) of the Employees Provident Fund Act No. 15 of 1958, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the "EPF Act"), along with a schedule, [At page 124 of the Appeal brief.] outlining the details of the alleged default.

The Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the "Appellant") was named as the defaulter in the said certificate. The learned Magistrate provided the Appellant an opportunity to show cause in terms of Section 38(2)

of the EPF Act.

Subsequently, the Appellant, by way of motion supported by an affidavit³, raised a preliminary objection based on the legal principle of double jeopardy (being prosecuted twice for substantially the same offence). The Appellant submitted to the Magistrate's Court that the Respondent had initiated proceedings against the Appellant in 2015 under Case No. 37759, during which a settlement was reached between the Petitioner and the Respondent. As a result, the payable amount was reduced to Rs. 163,350.00, which was fully paid by the Petitioner.

In response to the Appellant's contention, the Respondent argued that Case No. 37759 had been instituted to recover Rs. 163,350.00 for the period from August

3 At pages 126 and 127 of the appeal brief.

2008 to January 2012. The certificate dated 4^th August 2014, [At page 64 of the appeal brief.], along with the attached schedule, [At page 65 of the appeal brief.], confirmed this position. The period relevant to Case No. 59678 in the Magistrate's Court, however, covered February 2012 to May 2015⁶ Accordingly, the learned Magistrate, in an Order dated 8^th September 2017, rejected the Appellant's show cause argument that he had already paid the amount stated in the certificate. The Magistrate ordered the Appellant to pay Rs.

344,205.00, the amount specified in the certificate filed in Case No. 59678.

Aggrieved by the decision, the Appellant filed Revision Application No. WP/HC/KT/REV/23/2017 in the High Court of Kalutara, seeking to revise and set aside the Order made by the learned Magistrate. In the Petition submitted to the High Court, [At page 4 of the appeal brief.], aside from the claim of double jeopardy, the Appellant argued that the certificate filed in the Magistrate's Court under Section 38(2) of the EPF Act lacked the necessary information and, th