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

C.A. (Writ) Application International Dresses (Pvt) Ltd No: 0383/2015 C/o MRC Group No. 125, Dehiwela Road Boralesgamuwa Petitioner - Vs -

1. Commissioner General of Labour, Department of Labour, Labour Secretariat, Narahenpita, Colombo 05.

And 221 others Respondents Before : P. Kirtisinghe J &

R. Gurusinghe J Counsel : Viran Corea with Thilini Vidanagamage Instructed by Lilanthi De Silva, For the Petitioners A. Gajadeera, SC for the 1^st and 2^nd Respondents S. Rajakaruna, on the instructions of Charles Vitharana Associates, for the 11th and 37th Respondents Argued on : 21.09.2023 Decided on : 12.10.2023 R. Gurusinghe J The Petitioner is an incorporated company. The 3rd to 221st respondents were employees of the petitioner’s factory at Angulana. The Petitioner’s position is that it was unable to continue operations in the factory in question due to financial difficulties and therefore, the Petitioner took steps to secure the employments of the 3^rd to 221^st respondents by transferring them to an associate company of the petitioner, with the same benefits and giving in addition a travelling allowance. The 3rd to 221st respondents did not report to work, and they complained to the 1^st respondent of their termination. The petitioner’s position is that their services should not be deemed terminated for the purpose of the Termination of Employment of Workman (Special Provisions) Act No. 45 of 1971 as amended (The TEWA).

The 1^st respondent is the Commissioner of Labour having power under the TEWA. The 2^nd respondent is the Assistant Commissioner of Labour of the Termination Branch and the inquiring officer of the inquiries in question, in the instant application. The 3rd to 221st respondents were the workmen of the petitioner in whose favour the order for compensation was issued. The petitioner challenges this order in this application.

The 2^nd respondent held an inquiry as per the directions of the 1^st respondent under the provisions of the TEWA. Thereafter, the 1^st respondent determined that the services of the employees mentioned in document P4 had been terminated. Therefore, in terms of Section 6 of TEWA, he had ordered compensation calculated according to the extraordinary gazette No. 1384/7 dated 15.3.2005 be paid to the employees whose services had been terminated as per the schedule annexed to the document marked P4.

The petitioner in this application seeks for a mandate in the nature of certiorari quashing the decision of the 2nd respondent dated 20.03.2015 marked P4.

The 1^st and 2^nd respondents filed objections to the petitioner’s application.

The 11^th and the 37^th respondents also filed objections.

The facts as stated by the petitioner As per the petition, the 3rd to 221st respondents were employees of the petitioner’s factory at Angulana and as per the contract of service, they are transferable employees to a different branch of the petitioner or branch within the Group of Companies, to which the petitioner company belongs.

By letter dated 4.12.2008, each of the 3^rd to 221^st respondents were informed that he or she would be transferred to one of the associate companies of the petitioner with effect from 8.12.2008. The 3^rd to 221^st respondents did not accept the said transfers and did not report for work as stipulated by the transfer letter. By letter dated 29.12.2008, the petitioner was informed that an inquiry would be held at the Department of Labour, consequent to an application made to the 2nd respondent by some workmen, who alleged that their services had been unlawfully terminated.

The petitioner took up the preliminary objection that the 1^st and 2^nd respondents had no jurisdiction to entertain or grant relief to the 3^rd to 221^st respondents as their serv