The Court of Appeal on Friday dismissed in limine, and without costs, a petition filed by the Ceylon Electricity Board Engineers’ Union (CEBEU) challenging elements of the Ceylon Electricity Board’s (CEB) restructuring plan and its proposed Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) for employees.
As a result, the Court declined to issue formal notice to the respondents, including the CEB, its Chairman and Energy Ministry Secretary Prof. K.T.M.U. Hemapala, Energy Minister P.S. Kumara Jayakody, members of the CEB Board, other CEB officials, Power Sector Reforms Secretariat Director General Pubudu Niroshan, the four new companies formed under the unbundling process, the Cabinet of Ministers, and Cabinet Secretary W.M.D.J. Fernando.
The petitioners — the CEBEU, its office bearers, and the secretaries of the CEB branches of the Nidahas Sewaka Sangamaya and the CEB Transport Workers’ Union — sought writs of certiorari and prohibition to invalidate the assignation letters issued to employees and the published VRS. The assignation letters notified CEB officers of their proposed placement in the newly established successor companies.
Delivering their decision, Justices S.U.B. Karalliyadde and Dr. D.F.H. Gunawardhana ruled that the petitioners were not entitled to the relief sought, noting that the assignation letters had been issued in accordance with the Sri Lanka Electricity Act, No. 17 of 2024. The Court observed that the CEB had complied with the legally required 14-month timeline for issuing these letters.
The Bench further held that the Act only obliges the CEB to “notify” employees of their proposed assignation, and it does not require the inclusion of additional details such as specific job roles, duties, work locations, or career progression paths.
The Court also determined that the new assignation terms were “not less favorable” than existing ones, with current promotion schemes, codes of conduct, and disciplinary procedures continuing to apply until new policies are introduced by the successor entities.
Importantly, the Court found that the transfer plan was not required to be published before employees were notified of their proposed assignations, as the preliminary plan only needs to be released on the day prior to the appointed date.
Addressing the issue of the VRS, the Court acknowledged that it had been published by citing an incorrect section of the Act but agreed with Deputy Solicitor General (DSG) Manohara Jayasinghe that the Minister of Energy had made a technical citation error. The Court clarified that the VRS terms should have been prescribed under Section 18 of the Act and that there was no legal requirement to publish those terms and conditions.
On the concern that the VRS gazette did not specify a time frame for compensation payments, the Court stated that the gazette clearly set out the formula for calculating compensation, and the absence of a time frame did not invalidate the scheme.
The petitioners had contended that the assignation letters were arbitrary and lacked sufficient information for employees to make informed decisions, including details about job designations, duties, locations, career advancement, corporate structure, management, HR, and transfer policies of the successor companies. They also argued that requiring responses within two months was unreasonable.
The Court, however, dismissed these claims, concluding that the CEB’s actions were lawful and consistent with the statutory requirements.
Deputy Solicitor General Manohara Jayasinghe, assisted by State Counsel Prabashinee Jayasekera, appeared for the CEB and its Chairman, while Shantha Jayawardena, with Hirannya Damunupola and instructed by Sanjeewa Kaluarachchi, represented the petitioners.
