THURAIRAJA, PC, ACTING CJ.

1. The Applicant-Respondent-Respondent, M.D.K. Padmasena (hereinafter the “Respondent”), was employed by the Respondent-Appellant-Appellant, Sri Lanka Transport Board, (hereinafter the “Appellant” or “SLTB”) from 14th March 1981 and was set to retire on the 23rd of October 2011, upon the completion of 55 years of age, which was the compulsory age of retirement at the time.

2. Subsequently, as per SLTB–HR Circular No. 15/2011, Marked “R1” issued by the Appellant Board, the age of retirement was extended up to the age of 57 years.

3. Thereafter, the Appellant issued SLTB–HR Circular No. 03/2013, Marked “A6” which further extended the age of retirement to 60 years. However, such extension was subject to the condition that it would be granted yearly upon requests/applications made 3 months prior to the date of retirement and upon such request/application being approved by the Board of the Appellant.

4. The Respondent, as he approached the age of 57, requested such an extension, duly complying with the above conditions. He was accordingly granted an extension for another year of service from 24^th October 2013 to 23^rd October 2014 until he turned 58.

5. Finding that the Respondent had failed in tendering a request for another year’s extension, which he ought to have done 3 months prior to 23^rd October 2014, the Appellant took steps to send the Respondent on retirement by letter dated 17^th October 2014., Letter of Retirement marked “A10”

6. Following this, on the 27th February 2014, the Respondent filed an application before the Labour Tribunal of Kalutara alleging that his services were terminated by the Appellant, and praying for, inter alia, reinstatement, back wages and damages as the Tribunal may deem fit to order.

7. The Appellant maintained that the Respondent’s services were not terminated by the Appellant, but that the Respondent was sent on retirement with effect from 23^rd October 2014 after reaching the age of 58 years, as he had failed to apply for further extension of service beyond the age of 58 years, 3 months prior to his retirement, as required by the existing Circular. The Appellant thus contends that the Respondent’s services came to an end upon the expiration of the extended service period.

8. In spite of this, when the Appellant appeared before the Labour Tribunal, the Appellant had agreed to reinstate the Respondent without back wages as per Circular No. 01/2015 dated 08^th March 2015,, [Marked “A5”] which subsequently came into effect, setting out the age of retirement for SLTB employees as 60 years. However, the Respondent had not accepted this proposal.

9. By order dated 12^th March 2019, the Labour Tribunal of Kalutara held that the Respondent’s services have been terminated by the Appellant and ordered that Rs. 658,852.80/- as compensation calculated for the salary of 24 months be paid to the Respondent.

10. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Labour Tribunal of Kalutara, the Appellant preferred an appeal to the Provincial High Court of the Western Province holden in Kalutara (hereinafter the “High Court”), praying inter alia that said order be set aside.

11. The learned High Court Judge, by Judgment dated 02nd July 2020 (hereinafter “the High Court Judgment”), dismissed the said appeal and further ordered that Rs. 50,000/- be paid to the Respondent as costs.

12. Being aggrieved by the same, the Appellant preferred the instant appeal to this Court.

Leave was granted on the following questions of law raised by the Appellant:

I. Did the learned High Court Judge err in failing to sufficiently consider and/or appreciate that the learned President of Labour Tribunal Kalutara has failed and/or neglected to properly analyse the evidence led before Labour Tribunal Kalutara when arriving at its order dated 12.03.2019?

II. Did the learned High Court Judge err in coming into the finding and/or conclusion in his judgment that the Respondent has duly acted in terms of the provisions of the applicable cir