“Invalid EPF Certificate Deemed as Not Filed”- City Carriers Limited v. AG

In a recent ruling, the Court of Appeal has determined that a new ground of appeal concerning the validity of a certificate filed under Section 38(2) of the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) Act can be raised even when it is introduced for the first time during the appeal process. The Appellant, contended that the certificate lacked essential particulars.

Citing the Supreme Court case City Carriers Limited v. The Attorney General [1992] 2 SLR 257, the Court emphasized that such certificates must include critical details, such as the names of employees, the periods of default, and the calculated sums owed. Although this challenge was presented for the first time in the appeal, the Court recognized it as a fundamental issue that needed to be addressed.

“In the case of City Carriers Limited v. The Attorney General the Supreme Court observed that the certificate which does not contained the required particulars is as that no certificate filed under Section 38 (2) of the EPF Act. Further, it was held that although this question of law was not specifically raised in the lower court as an issue it could be raised in the higher court. In this instance, the issue that was not raised before the Magistrate’s Court, was raised in the High Court14. In my view, it is a fundamental question that needs to be addressed by the Court before proceeding further in view of the observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of City Carriers Limited v. The Attorney General15 that the certificate which does not contain the required particulars is as that no certificate filed under Section 38(2) of the EPF Act…..” – Justice M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne

CASE NO: CA No. CA/PHC/0276/2019

BEFORE : M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne J. & M. Ahsan. R. Marikar J.