IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Appeal against the Judgment of the High Court of the Western Province Holden at Colombo Case No. HCA (LT) 99/2018, under and in terms of Article 128(2) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, read together with Section 31DD of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, No. 32 of 1990 as amended.

S.A.D.J. Chandrakumara, No. 22, Suhada Mawatha, Nagoda, Kalutara.

Applicant SC Appeal No: 110/2021 SC/SPL/LA/196/2020 HCA (LT) 99/2018 LT Case No: LT 2 Add./3668/2013 Vs.

Vocational Training Authority of Sri Lanka, No. 354/2, 4^th Floor, Nipunatha Piyasa, Elvitigala Mawatha, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. Respondent AND BETWEEN Vocational Training Authority of Sri Lanka, No. 354/2, 4^th Floor, Nipunatha Piyasa, Elvitigala Mawatha, Narahenpita, Colombo 05.

Respondent-Appellant Vs.

S.A.D.J. Chandrakumara, No. 22, Suhada Mawatha, Nagoda, Kalutara.

Applicant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Vocational Training Authority of Sri Lanka, No. 354/2, 4^th Floor, Nipunatha Piyasa, Elvitigala Mawatha, Narahenpita, Colombo 05.

Respondent-Appellant-Petitioner Vs.

S.A.D.J. Chandrakumara, No. 22, Suhada Mawatha, Nagoda, Kalutara.

Applicant-Respondent-

Respondent Before: Justice P. Padman Surasena Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne Counsel: Kushan D’ Alwis, PC with Ruwan Dias, Ayendra Wickremasekera and Sashendra Mudannayake for the Respondent-Appellant-Appellant.

R.A.D. Kumarawickrama for the Applicant-Respondent-Respondent.

Argued on: 26/02/2024 Decided on: 18/06/2024 A.L. Shiran Gooneratne J.

The Applicant-Respondent-Respondent, (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the Applicant) filed an Application No. LT 2 Add./3668/2013 before the Colombo Labour Tribunal stating inter alia, that his employment as Director Finance with the Respondent- Appellant-Appellant, Vocational Training Authority of Sri Lanka (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the Appellant-Authority) was unjustly terminated with effect from

20/06/2012.

By answer dated 11/12/2013, the Appellant-Authority took up the position that the termination of service was justified due to several financial irregularities and or acts of financial misconduct on the part of the Respondent as revealed in the Auditor General’s Department report dated 07/04/2010. It was further contended that based on an interim report on this matter, the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Skill Development, by letter dated

02/06/2011, terminated the services of the Respondent.

At the conclusion of the Inquiry, the learned President of the Labour Tribunal by Order dated 23/08/2018 inter alia, held with the Respondent, that the termination of employment was unjustified and directed that the Appellant-Authority pay compensation to the equivalent of 47 months’ salary to the Respondent, in lieu of reinstatement.

Being aggrieved by the said Order, the Appellant-Authority, by Petition of Appeal dated 28/09/2018, appealed to the High Court of the Western Province holden in Colombo (“the High Court”). The High Court, by Judgment dated 21/08/2020 affirmed the said Order of the learned President of the Labour Tribunal dated 23/08/2018 and dismissed the appeal with costs.

The Appellant-Authority, by Petition dated 02/10/2020 is before this Court, to set aside the said Judgment dated 21/08/2020, delivered by the High Court.

By Order dated 15/11/2021, this Court granted leave to appeal on the following questions of law;

1. Is the said judgement of the learned High Court Judge marked P10, wherein His Honor, inter alia, proceed to affirm the Order of the Labour Tribunal marked ‘P5’, is ex-facie contrary to law against the weight of evidence led by the parties at the said inquiry before the Labour Tribunal?

2. Have the learned High Court Judge and the President of the Labour Tribunal erred in failing to take account of the material acts of suppression committed by the Respondent?

3. Has the learned High Court Judge misdirected himself in