SRI LANKA TELECOM LTD

VS.

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION OF SRI LANKA AND OTHERS

SUPREME COURT
DE ABREW, J.
ABEYRATNE, J.
PERERA, J.
SC/APPEAL/215/2012
SC/SPL/LN47/2012
CA/WRIT/519/2008
NOVEMBER 25, 2016

Human Rights Commission Act, No. 21 of 1996, section 15- Recommendations affecting the rights of parties-Amenability to writ jurisdiction

The 8th respondent, an employee of Sri Lanka Telecom Ltd, was transferred from the marketing division to the commercial division. He did not report for duty to the commercial division. He filed an application in the Labour Tribunal against the constructive termination of his services and also complained to the Human Rights Commission (HRC) of the violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 12(1) of the Constitution. The Labour Tribunal dismissed his application on the basis that he had left the employment on his own. The HRC by letter marked 'G' recommended that he be reappointed in the salary scale A6 with all allowances and other payments and that he be paid reasonable compensation for the loss of his career. The letter further states that in terms of section 15 of the HRC Act, the petitioner employer shall send a report to the HRC informing the HRC of the steps taken with regard to the said recommendation. The writ application filed by the petitioner against this recommendation was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on the basis that recommendations are not amenable to writ jurisdiction. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court.

Held :

1. According to section 15(7) of the HRC Act, the Commission shall require any person to whom a recommendation is made to report to the Commission, within such period as may be specified in the recommendation, the action such person has taken to give effect

to the recommendation, and it shall be the duty of every such person to report to the Commission accordingly.

2. Section 15(8) of the HRC Act stipulates that where any person to whom a recommendation is made fails to report to the Commission within the period specified in the recommendation, or the action taken or proposed to be taken to give effect to the recommendation is inadequate, the Commission shall report the same to the President who shall cause a copy of such report to be placed before Parliament.

3. The petitioner is a listed public company and its reputation will be tarnished as a violator of fundamental rights if it ignores the recommendations of the HRC.

4. What is contained in the document marked 'G' is not only a recommendation but a decision affecting the rights of the petitioner.

5. If the recommendation of a public body affects the rights of an individual, such recommendation can be quashed by way of a writ of certiorari.

6. The Court of Appeal erred by holding that the said recommendation does not attract writ jurisdiction when in fact it is a step in a prescribed statutory process and affects the rights and interests of the petitioner.

Cases referred to :

1. Rex v. Electricity Commissioner [1924] 1 KB 171 at 205
2. B. Sirisena Cooray v. Tissa Dias Bandaranayake and others [1991] 1 Sri LR 1
3. G.P.A. Silva and others v. Sadique and others [1978/79/80] Sri LR 166 at 171-172

APPEAL from the Judgment of the Court of Appeal.

Sanjeewa Jayawardena, P.C., with Pubuduni Wickramaratne for the Petitioner-Petitioner-Appellant.

Parinda Ranasinghe, S.D.S.G., for the 1st to 7th Respondent-Respondent- Respondents.

W. Jayaratne, P.C., with R. Jayawardena for the 8th Respondent- Respondent-Respondent.

cur. adv. vult.

March 1, 2017

DE ABREW,J.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal wherein the Court of Appeal refused to issue a writ of certiorari sought by the Petitioner-Petitioner-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner-Appellant) to quash the recommendation of the Human Rights Commission (hereinafter referred to as the HRC). This court by ord