Adithya Patabendige, J.

The Petitioner, Sumithra Hasalaka (Private)Ltd.

(hereinafter referred to as “the Petitioner”) invoked the jurisdiction of this court seeking, inter alia, the following reliefs:

a) A mandate in the nature of writ of certiorari, to quash the reference for Arbitration made by the 1^st Respondent – Minister of Labour marked P29 (a), which was published in the Gazette Extraordinary dated 18^th November 2024 marked P29 (b); and b) A mandate in the nature of writ of prohibition, restraining the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th Respondents and/or their officers from taking any steps whatsoever to institute or pursue proceedings pursuant to the said reference made by the 1^st Respondent.

When this application was taken up for support for the issuance of formal notice and interim relief, learned President’s Counsel appeared for the Petitioner and for the 1^st to 4^th and 6^th Respondents made oral submissions. Subsequently, written submissions were tendered on behalf of the Petitioner and the 4^th Respondent.

Learned President’s Counsel who appeared for the Petitioner challenged the reference of the 1^st Respondent on following grounds.

1) The reference is vague, ambiguous and obscure,

2) That no industrial dispute existed between the Petitioner and the 4^th Respondent which would have empowered the 1^st Respondent to make a valid reference to Arbitration under Section 4(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act (IDA)

3) The question of granting a salary increment lies solely within the discretion of the employer, and therefore a dispute relating to a demand for a salary increment cannot be considered an industrial dispute within the meaning if the IDA. The facts giving rise to this application can be narrated as follows.

The Petitioner is a private limited liability company engaged in the apparel industry and, at the time of filing this application, had employed approximately 685 employees at its factory in Hasalaka.

By letter dated 27^th November 2023, the 4^th Respondent trade union demanded Rs.10000 as a salary increment for each workman. However, the management of the Petitioner agreed to pay an increment of Rs.1500 with effect from 1^st January 2024. Dissatisfied with this decision, the 4^th Respondent union, by letter dated 7^th February 2024, informed the Petitioner, that the union decided to stoppage of work from 3.30 pm on 9^th February 2024.

According to the petition, 167 members of the union had absented themselves from work and attended a meeting of the union, while the majority of employees continued to perform their normal duties. Thereafter, the branch union of the 4^th Respondent by its letter dated 10^th February 2024 informed the Petitioner, that they had commenced a strike action with effect from 09^th of February 2024.

Meanwhile, the branch union of the 4^th Respondent lodged a complaint with the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Mahiyanganaya Office regarding the strike action. After several discussions between the parties, the matter was referred to the Industrial Relations Unit of the Department of Labour, Colombo.

Subsequently, the 1^st Respondent, Minister of Labour referred this matter for arbitration in terms of Section 4(1) of the IDA and appointed the 5^th Respondent as the Arbitrator by letter dated 24^th April 2024, which was published in Gazette Extraordinary No. 2382/37 dated 05^th August 2024. The reference for the arbitration was framed as follows.

“Whether the employees have been caused injustice by the way the establishment has acted with regard to the request made by the Free Trade Zones and General Services Employee’s Union to increase the salary by Rs.10,000 from January 2024 and if so, to what relief they are entitled.”

As stated in paragraph 45 of the amended petition dated 29/01/2025, the Petitioner averred that upon such reference, the employees who were on strike decided to resume work.

However, the Arbitrator initially appointed, Mr. Palitha Senadheera subsequently resigned, and the 1^st Respondent revoked the said reference.