B. Sasi Mahendran, J.

The Petitioner instituted this action praying for the following reliefs in the petition dated 15.07.2023.

A. Issue notice on the Respondents

B. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing decision of the 1^st Respondent dated 2022.09.09 marked as (x)

C. Grants costs

D. Grant any other relief Your Lordships’ Court deem meet The facts of this case are briefly as follows:

According to the petition, there was a Voluntary Retirement Scheme introduced to the employees of the Sri Lanka Transport Board (SLTB) in the year of 2016 by the Circular dated 31.05.2016 marked as P2. Under the said scheme, the 2^nd Respondent who was 59 years old made an application. There was another Circular issued dated 16.08.2016 (marked as P3) for the entitlement of gratuity.

The 2^nd Respondent made an application to the Labour Commissioner on the basis that the Petitioner had not properly calculated the gratuity and the compensation which was due to him based on the said Circulars.

This matter was later referred to the Arbitrator who made an Award on 09.09.2024 which is marked as ‘X’. According to the Arbitrator (the 1st Respondent), he has calculated the compensation and gratuity on the basis that, on the retirement, the 2nd Respondent was drawing a salary of Rs. 57, 726. Thereafter, on that basis, he has calculated and determined the amounts to be paid by the Petitioner to the 2nd Respondent.

The main ground urged by the Petitioner is that the last drawn salary includes a RAT allowance which is a special allowance temporarily paid to the employees. According to the Petitioner, this is an incentive payment by the Chairman of SLTB. Therefore, the Arbitrator had made a mistake by including the said amount in the last drawn salary which is against the interpretation of ‘wages and salary’ as mentioned in the Gratuity Act.

When we peruse the Circulars marked P2 and P3, it is clearly indicated that, a) The compensation should be calculated based on the last drawn salary b) Gratuity should be calculated on the last drawn salary According to the 2nd Respondent, he has voluntarily retired prematurely on the basis that, he will get the benefits which have been described in the said Circulars. Further, the Arbitrator has based his decision on these circulars.

For easy reference, relevant excerpts of these Circulars are reproduced below.

P2

P3

“1990/12/28 දින හා ඊට ්ⷎෙර ලංගම/ ᮅ㮡 ලංගමට බැදුනු අ්ⷍරුදු 05 ක අඛණ්ඩ ්ⷎසේ්ⷍා කාලයක් ඇති සේිර/අනියම්/්ⷎකානරාත් /දදනික ෙදන්ⷎම් ්ⷎසේ්ⷍය කරන ්ⷎසේ්ⷍකයින සඳහා ඔවුන ්ⷎසේ්ⷍය සම්ුර්ණ කර ඇති සෑම ්ⷍර්ෂයක් සදහාම අ්ⷍසාන ්ⷍරට ලැබූ ්ⷍැටුෙ/්ⷎේතන ෙදනම් කර්ⷎගන මුල් ෙත්ී්ⷎම් දිනය සිට ්ⷎසේ්ⷍය අ්ⷍසන කිරීම දක්්ⷍා එක් ්ⷍර්ෂයකට එක් මසක ්ⷍැටුෙ බැගින ආගණනය කර ොරි්ⷎතෝෂිකය ්ⷎගවිය යුතුය.”

In the instant case, the Petitioner challenges the decision of the Arbitrator on the basis that he has come to a conclusion by wrongly interpreting the last drawn salary.

As stated by Sunil F.A.Coorey, Principles of Administrative Law in Sri Lanka, Fourth Edition Volume II- Page 911- 912;

Availability of Certiorari and Prohibition

“The circumstances in which certiorari and prohibition will be available have been summed up by Lord Justice Atkin, an English judge, in the following famous words which on numerous occasions have been cited and followed by our courts:

" Whenever any body of persons having legal authority to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects, and having the duty to act judicially, act in excess of their legal authority they are subject to the controlling jurisdiction of the King's Bench Division exercised in these Writs."

This dictum has b