• Court refuses to grant leave in union’s FR application 
• Application alleges violation of Fundamental Rights  

The Supreme Court has refused to grant leave to proceed with a Fundamental Rights (FR) application filed by the Telecommunication Engineers’ Union (TEU) of Sri Lanka Telecom (SLT).

The union had alleged that SLT’s move to seek interim orders from the District Court of Colombo – preventing the union from engaging in a strike action against the sale of Government-owned shares of SLT to private investors – amounted to a violation of their Fundamental Rights.  

When the FR application bearing No. SC FR 282/2024, filed by the TEU, was taken up for leave to proceed on Tuesday (17) before the Supreme Court, the President’s Counsel appearing for the TEU submitted that the decision of the Chairman and Board of Directors of SLT to institute proceedings before the District Court of Colombo and obtain interim relief amounted to a violation of the Petitioners’ Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution.

The petition was heard before a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena and Justices Shiran Gooneratne and Priyantha Fernando.

The President’s Counsel for the TEU further invited the court’s attention to Section 2 of the Trade Unions Ordinance, which defines a ‘trade union,’ and to Section 26 thereof. 

It was contended that, pursuant to Section 26, no civil action or other legal proceeding lies against a registered trade union or any officer or member thereof in respect of acts done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. 

It was further argued that the interim orders had been couched in excessively wide terms, thereby impeding and restricting the lawful trade union activities of the Petitioners. 

Accordingly, it was urged that the intervention of the court was necessary to ensure the proper interpretation and application of Article 14 of the Constitution in the circumstances.

In reply, the President’s Counsel for SLT submitted that Section 2 of the Trade Unions Ordinance expressly defined a ‘trade dispute’ as one connected with employment. It was contended that the proceedings in the District Court, pursuant to which the interim orders were obtained, arose out of a strike declared by the TEU in close proximity to the postal voting for the 2024 Presidential Election. 

It was submitted that the said strike was prompted by the TEU’s apprehension that the appointment of a new government would negatively impact the share value of SLT and potentially result in shares being divested to private entities.

It was further submitted that the interim orders were narrowly tailored to restrain the TEU from engaging in trade union action that would disrupt the day-to-day operations of SLT, jeopardise national security, particularly in view of SLT’s role as a telecommunications service provider to the armed forces, or interfere with the conduct of elections. 

It was emphasised that the relevant orders did not amount to a blanket prohibition on trade union activity and were expressly subject to the TEU’s Fundamental Rights under Article 14 of the Constitution.

The President’s Counsel for SLT further contended that, even subsequent to the issuance of the impugned interim orders, the TEU had continued to engage in trade union activities to which SLT had raised no objections, as such activities did not fall within the ambit of the prohibitions imposed.

It was also submitted that the FR application instituted by SLT effectively sought to set aside or quash the order of the District Court, which relief was impermissible in FR proceedings. 

It was also pointed out that the TEU had already preferred an appeal before the Civil Appellate High Court of Colombo challenging the interim orders, which constituted the appropriate forum for such redress.

According to the papers filed before the Supreme Court by the TEU, the genesis of its dispute with the management of SLT arose consequent to a request made by the Chief Compliance and Forensic Officer of SLT from an employee who was a member of the TEU, seeking certain information allegedly without obtaining the prior approval of the said employee’s immediate supervisor.

The TEU contends that upon the employee’s refusal to furnish such information in the absence of supervisory approval, the Chief Executive Officer of SLT issued Circular No. 61/2024, directing all employees to promptly provide any information requested by the Internal Audit Group and the Forensic and Compliance Group of SLTMobitel, and expressly stipulating that the approval of the immediate supervisor was not a prerequisite for complying with such requests.

In response thereto, the TEU informed SLT that its members would only respond to requests made in writing by the Internal Audit and Forensic and Compliance Groups. 

The TEU further took up the position before the Supreme Court that such requests formed part of an alleged attempt to release confidential information pertaining to SLT to external parties, purportedly with a view to influencing or diluting the share price of the Government-owned shares in SLT.

The TEU alleged that there existed an attempt to deliberately devalue the shares of SLT in order to facilitate a sale of the company to private investors at an undervalued price. On that basis, the TEU states that it conducted peaceful protests against the proposed sale of SLT to private investors. 

It further contends that any such privatisation would result in a fundamental alteration of the governance structure of the company, directly affecting employees who would thereby lose the rights and protections presently enjoyed by them as employees of a State-owned enterprise.

In its petition filed before the Supreme Court, the TEU revealed that in response to the aforesaid disputes, the union had resolved to go on a token strike on 5, 6, and 9 September 2024.

In response, SLT instituted proceedings bearing No. DSP/423/2024 before the District Court of Colombo, seeking the grant of enjoining orders and interim injunctions restraining the TEU from engaging in any trade union action calculated to disrupt the 2024 Presidential Election, interfere with the uninterrupted provision of services by SLT, and/or threaten, intimidate, or obstruct employees reporting for duty at SLT.

Accordingly, the District Court of Colombo, by an order dated 4 September 2025, granted an enjoining order restraining the TEU from engaging in strike action. Subsequently, upon conducting an inquiry into the application for interim relief, the court further granted interim injunctions continuing to restrain the TEU from proceeding with any strike action pending the final determination of the case.

President’s Counsel Manohara De Silva with Attorney-at-Law Boopathi Kahathuduwa appeared for the TEU on the instructions of Attorney-at-Law K.R.G.W.K. Kahathuduwa.

President’s Counsel Uditha Egalahewa together with Attorney-at-Law Damitha Karunarathne and Attorney-at-Law Miyuru Egalahewa appeared on the instructions of Kanchana Senanayake for SLT.