IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Application for Special Leave to Appeal under and in terms of Article 154P(3)(b) of the Constitution and in terms of Section 31DD(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act No. 43 of 1950 (as amended) read with Section 9(a) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 19 of 1990 and Section 8 of the Industrial Disputes (Hearing and Determination of Proceedings) (Special Provisions) Act No. 13 of 2003 from the Order of the Provincial High Court of the Western Province holden in Panadura.

S.C. Appeal No. 134/2023 Epa Arachchige Kumudu Upendra S.C. (S.P.L.) (L.A.) No. 296/2021 Premachandra, H.C. Case No. HC/ALT/09/2021 No. 26/2, Janajaya Mawatha, L.T. Colombo Case No. Atambagoda, LT PN25/108/2018 Panadura.

Applicant Vs.

Asiabike Industrial Limited, No. 114, Old Galle Road, Henamulla, Panadura.

Respondent AND BETWEEN Epa Arachchige Kumudu Upendra Premachandra, No. 26/2, Janajaya Mawatha, Atambagoda, Panadura.

Applicant – Appellant Vs.

Asiabike Industrial Limited, No. 114, Old Galle Road, Henamulla, Panadura.

Respondent – Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Asiabike Industrial Limited, No. 114, Old Galle Road, Henamulla, Panadura.

Respondent – Respondent – Petitioner Vs.

Epa Arachchige Kumudu Upendra Premachandra, No. 26/2, Janajaya Mawatha, Atambagoda, Panadura.

Applicant – Appellant – Respondent Before: Hon. Murdu N. B. Fernando, P.C., C.J.

Hon. Janak De Silva, J.

Hon. Achala Wengappuli, J.

Counsels: Mohamed Adamaly, P.C. with Dakshina Wickramarachchi and Shannel Gunatileka for the Respondent – Respondent – Petitioner Srinath Perera for the Applicant – Appellant – Respondent Written Submissions: 27.02.2024 by the Respondent – Respondent –

Petitioner Argued on: 28.02.2024 Decided on: 22.05.2025 Janak De Silva, J.

The Applicant-Appellant-Respondent (Respondent) was an employee of the Respondent-

Respondent-Appellant (Appellant).

In November, 2018 the Respondent made an application to the Labour Tribunal of Panadura alleging that the Appellant had unjustly and unlawfully terminated his services. After inquiry, the Labour Tribunal held that the Appellant had acted mala fide in terminating the services of the Respondent. The termination was held to be unjust and unlawful.

However the Labour tribunal did not order reinstatement as it could be an impediment to industrial peace. Instead, compensation was awarded in a sum of Rs. 318,000/= which amounted to 06 months basic salary.

The Respondent appealed to the High Court of the Western Province holden in Panadura (“High Court”). At the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant raised a preliminary objection that the appeal was out of time. The learned High Court Judge overruled the preliminary objection.

The Appellant sought leave to appeal against the said order. Leave to appeal has been granted on the following question of law:

“Did the Learned High Court Judge err in law in computation of the time applicable for filing of appeals from the awards made by the Labour Tribunal to the High Court?”

At the outset, it must be elucidated that we are not dealing with a law that was enacted in English prior to the 1972 Constitution. In such cases, the Court will be guided by the language in which the law was enacted.

In Attorney-General v. Herath Mudiyanselage Hamyge Herath Banda [(1983) Bar Association Law Journal Reports Vol. I Part III 108] it was held that the Bribery Act was enacted in English and for the purposes of legal work it could not be considered in any other language. [See Chandrawathi v. Wijewickrama (S.C. Appeal 177/2016, S.C.M.

28.07.2022 at page 5)].

The Industrial Disputes (Hearing and Determination of Proceedings) (Special Provisions) Act No. 13 of 2003 (“Act”) was enacted under the 1978 Constitution. Section 6(1) of specifies the time limit within which a petition of appeal must be filed. The English text of the Act reads as follows:

“A petition of appeal made under section 31D of the Industrial Disputes Act against