Writ petition filed by the two national cricket captains taken up for support before the Court of Appeal challenging arbitrary classification.
The Petitioners, Charith Asalanka and Dhanajaya De Silva as the respective captains of the One Day International and Twenty20 cricket teams and the Test Cricket Team, had their petition taken up before the Acting President of the Court of Appeal Justice M.T.M. Lafar and Hon. Justice K. P. Fernando today.
The Petition was preferred by the cricketers in relation to an arbitrary and unreasonable overnight classification of Sri Lanka’s national cricketers as employees of the national association, Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) by the Inland Revenue Department.
The Petitioners filed the petition seeking for notice to quash the decision of the Inland Revenue Department and an interim order to suspend the decision of the Inland Revenue Department.
A letter signed by 38 national cricketers, including players Wanindu Hasaranga, Angelo Mathews, Maheesh Theekshana, Pathum Nissanka, Kusal Mendis setting out the grievance and endorsing the Petitioners to seek appropriate legal redress on the unlawful classification was also placed before Court.
On behalf of Petitioners, it was submitted that Sri Lanka’s cricketers have been historically treated as independent service providers and in fact they cannot be construed to be employees and from the first instance of adoption of contracts between SLC and players, national cricketers have been treated as independent service providers between the parties.
It was submitted that the intention of the parties being a cricketer and SLC, at all times, was that the national cricketers were independent service providers to SLC and not employees.
The Court’s attention was drawn to the contract and the uncertainty involved with career progression of cricketers and also that there was no certainty in a Contract being offered.
Further it was submitted that Sri Lanka Cricket as per the contract with a player, implements the International Cricket Councils (ICC) rules in the interest of the game. Counsel for the Petitioners further drew the attention of Court to the nature of the contractual terms between the parties that involved significant uncertainty as to renewal, tenure and payments which was not a salary but a fee. It was further submitted that the contracts between players and SLC also facilitates the use of image rights of players and at all times such right is to be vested with the player as per the contract, which is a necessary requirement for broadcasting of matches and facilitating global cricket events. After almost 15 years of contracts between SLC and players, identifying national cricketers as independent service providers, the Inland Revenue Department by a letter in October 2024 had arbitrarily and unreasonably informed SLC of its categorization of national cricketers as employees of SLC without the Cricketers being given a hearing or being informed to make representations and directed SLC to make appropriate statutory deductions. It was further submitted that players were informed of this change in classification in or around February 2025 by SLC and prior to the Petitioners instituting action challenging the decision of the Inland Revenue Department, the cricketers obtained had obtained legal opinion as to their rights, and the said opinion was placed before the Court.
It was further submitted that as contracts with SLC are often only for twelve months, it is now the period of contract re-negotiation and the arbitrary change in classification plunges the national cricketers into uncertainty regarding their contracts and relevant statutory entitlements. It was submitted that the challenged decision also impacts cricketers who are attached to the police, army and other entities. It was further submitted that the national cricketers were not of the opinion that SLC should be burdened with having to provide statutory entitlements such as EPF and ETF or gratuity and were not seeking such entitlements. It was submitted to Court that the Players are not seeking to avoid paying of any tax when in fact most of the cricketers have been paying their taxes through self-assessment over a period of time and that the Auditor General has also conceded that cricketers were Independent Service Providers and not employees.
On behalf of SLC, it informed to Court that SLC was in agreement with the factual position taken by the Petitioners in respect of not being employees of Sri Lanka Cricket and that they are independent service providers. On behalf of SLC it was informed to Court that they wish to make submissions on the matter and will abide by any order of the Court.
The matter was fixed to be resumed for Petitioner’s to continue to make submissions and the Respondents’ reply submissions on 28th March 2025.
Counsel Nishan Sydney Premathiratne appeared with Shenali Dias and Sidath Gajayanaka on the instructions of Gamindu Karunasena for the Petitioners, Charith Asalanka and Dhananjaya De Silva.
President’s Counsel Kuvera de Soyza with Pasindu Bandara and Sajana de Soyza on the instructions of Sanjay Fonsek represented Sri Lanka Cricket.
Deputy Solicitor General Manohara Jayasinghe appeared for the Inland Revenue Departement.