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

Seylan Bank PLC No. 90, Galle Road, Colombo 3 CA/Writ/Application No. 286/13 Lab Dept No. TEU/A/3/43/2012 PETITIONER Vs.

1. Hon. Gamini Lokuge Minister of Labour Labour Secretariat, 575, Colombo 05.

2. V. B. P. K. Weerasinghe Commissioner General of Labour Labour Secretariat, 575, Colombo 05.

3. R. P. Iresha Udayangani Assistant Commissioner of Labour Labour Secretariat, 575, Colombo 05.

4. S. A. R. Pushpakumara “Vijayapaya”, Pinnawala, Rambukkana.

RESPONDENTS

5. Hon. W. D. J. Seneviratne Minister of Labour Labour Secretariat, 575, Colombo 05.

6. Chandani Amaratunge Commissioner General of Labour Labour Secretariat, 575, Colombo 05.

7. Hon. Raveendra Samaraweera Minister of Labour Labour Secretariat, 575, Colombo 05.

8. R. P. A Wimalaweera Commissioner General of Labour Labour Secretariat, 575, Colombo 05.

9. Hon. Nimal Siripala De Silva Minister of Labour Labour Secretariat, 575, Colombo 05.

10. E. K. Prabath Chandrakeerthi Commissioner General of Labour Labour Secretariat, 575, Colombo 05.

11. Hon. Manusha Nanayakkara Minister of Labour Labour Secretariat, 575, Colombo 05.

12. Commissioner General of Labour Labour Secretariat, 575, Colombo 05.

ADDED RESPONDENTS Before: C.P Kirtisinghe, J Mayadunne Corea, J Counsel: Chandimal Mendis with Shyama Gamage for the Petitioner Manohara Jayasinghe DSG for 1^st – 3^rd Respondents Dr. Lasantha Hettiarachchi with Himath Silva and Chanuka Abeygunasekera for the 4^th Respondent.

Argued on: 27.01.2023 Written Submissions: For the Petitioner on 22.03.2023 For the 1^st – 3^rd Respondents on 14.03.2023 For the 4^th Respondent on 21.03.2023 Decided on: 28.06.2023 Mayadunne Corea J The facts of the case are briefly as follows. The Petitioner is a public quoted company in Sri Lanka incorporated under the terms of Companies Act No. 17 of 1982 and duly re-registered under the terms of Companies Act No.7 of 2007 and engaged in commercial banking. The 4^th Respondent was recruited by the Petitioner in the capacity of a driver by letter dated 31^st January 1995 [X2(a)]. The 4^th Respondent lodged a complaint dated 12.09.2012 [P1] before the 2^nd Respondent under and in terms of the Termination of Employment (Special Provisions) Act No. 45 of 1971 as amended, alleging that the Petitioner unlawfully terminated his services. The Petitioner states it was summoned for an inquiry at the Labour Secretariat by way of a letter dated 26.09.2012 (P2). Following several days of inquiry and written submissions tendered by both parties, the 2^nd Respondent delivered his order dated 13.08.2013 (P4) and held that the 4^th Respondent’s services have been terminated and therefore be reinstated in employment together with back wages without disruption of service.

The Petitioner states that the aforesaid order is unreasonable and arbitrary as the 2^nd Respondent has failed to take into consideration the retirement age of the Petitioner as per his contract of employment dated 31.01.1995. Hence this writ application.

Petitioner’s Complaint to Court The Petitioner challenges the impugned order (P4) on two main grounds. Namely, the decision to reinstate the 4^th Respondent is bad in law, unfair, irrational, and arbitrary as the 4^th Respondent is over 55 years of age. Additionally, the Petitioner also states that the 2^nd Respondent has failed to take into consideration that since the 19^th of March 2019, the retirement age for all employees in the Petitioner Bank is governed by their respective Letters of Appointment and Circular No.

2009/003 dated 19.03.2009 (P6).

The second ground the Petitioner alleges is that there has been a failure to give proper reasons, justifying and substantiating the Order directing the Petitioner to reinstate the 4^th Respondent. The Petitioner submits that the 2^nd Respondent does not have the power