SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SRI)(SC) 9829

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Application made under Article 128(2) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka for special leave to appeal against the judgment dated 13th of February 2017 of the Honorable Court of Appeal.

1. L. J. K. Hettiaratchi, No. 28/3, De Fonseka Place, Colombo 05.

2. H. G. Fonseka, No. 28/2, De Fonseka Place, Colombo 05.

S.C. Appeal No. 37/2018 S.C. (Spl) L.A. No. 53/2017 Petitioners C.A. (Writ) Application No. 280/2012 Vs.

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

2. Mr. L. T. G. D. Darshana, Assistant Labour Commissioner, Labour Secretariat, Department of Labour, Narahenpita, Colombo 05.

3. Mr. M. A. Dhanardane, Labour Officer, Labour Secretariat, Department of Labour, Narahenpita, Colombo 05.

4. Walker Son & Company Limited, No. 18, St. Michael’s Road, Colombo 03. Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN

1. L. J. K. Hettiaratchi, No. 28/3, De Fonseka Place, Colombo 05.

2. H. G. Fonseka, No. 28/2, De Fonseka Place, Colombo 05.

Petitioner Petitioners Vs.

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

1A. Prabath Chandrakeerthi, Attorney – at – Law, The Commissioner General of Labour, Labour Secretariat, Department of Labour, Narahenpita, Colombo 05.

2. Mr. L. T. G. D. Darshana, Assistant Labour Commissioner, Labour Secretariat, Department of Labour, Narahenpita, Colombo 05.

2A. Mr. H. K. K. A. Jayasundara, Assistant Labour Commissioner, Labour Secretariat, Department of Labour, Narahenpita, Colombo 05.

Substituted Respondent Respondent

3. Mr. M. A. Dhanardane, Labour Officer, Labour Secretariat, Department of Labour, Narahenpita, Colombo 05.

4. Walker Son & Company Limited, No. 18, St. Michael’s Road, Colombo 03.

Respondent Respondents Before: Hon. Murdu N. B. Fernando, P.C., C.J.

Hon. Yasantha Kodagoda, P.C., J.

Hon. Janak De Silva, J.

Counsel: Anoukshi Vidanagamage with Mohamed Adamaly for the Petitioner –

Petitioners Sureka Ahmed, SC for the 1st to 3rd Respondent – Respondents Written Submissions: 15.05.2018 and 22.08.2023 by Petitioner – Petitioners

04.08.2023 by 1st, 2nd, 3rd Respondent – Respondents 10.06.2020 by 1st and 2nd Respondent – Respondents

27.01.2020 by 4th Respondent – Respondent Argued on: 30.05.2023 Decided on: 18.07.2025 Janak De Silva, J.

The Petitioner-Petitioners (Petitioners) complained to the Commissioner General of Labour (CGOL) that their statutory dues have not been paid. An inquiry was conducted by U.P.R. Sirinaga, Assistant Commissioner of Labour. Thereafter by letter dated 24.11.2011 a direction was made on the Secretary of the Walkers Covenanted Staff Benefit Association to pay the private provident fund dues of the Petitioners.

Subsequently the 3rd Respondent-Respondent (3rd Respondent) by letter dated 12.07.2012 sent to the 4th Respondent-Respondent (4th Respondent), copied to the Petitioners, informed that an inquiry was to be held relating to the complaint of the Petitioners dated 19.03.2010. The Petitioners attended the said inquiry and sought a clarification on the scope and purpose of the inquiry. The 3rd Respondent intimated that it was been held on the instructions of the 2nd Respondent-Respondent (2nd Respondent)

to review his previous decision.

The Petitioners moved the Court of Appeal seeking a writ of Certiorari to quash the decision to review the previous decision. This application was rejected.

The Court of Appeal held that the 2nd Respondent-Respondent (2nd Respondent) had decided to continue the inquiry to ascertain the exact position and verify whether the Petitioners have acted as Directors or as employees of the 4th Respondent and to ascertain the details of their salary during the relevant time. Court further held that the first inquiry centered on Employment Provident Fund (EPF) payments and that the decision on the Gratuity had been made wi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top