Court proposes stakeholder meeting to resolve IRD classification of players as employees
The Court of Appeal this week proposed that the writ petitions filed by Sri Lankan cricketers against the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) over their classification as employees of Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) be resolved through a stakeholder meeting. The court observed that resolving the matter amicably would serve the best interests of the game, warning that prolonged disputes could only demotivate the players and disrupt Sri Lanka’s cricketing structure.
The petitions, heard before the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Rohantha Abeysuriya PC, and Justice Priyantha Fernando, challenge the IRD’s decision to retrospectively impose the Advance Personal Income Tax (APIT) from January 2023. The cricketers argue that the IRD’s move to treat them as SLC employees was arbitrary, illegal, and made without due process.
The male players’ petition, led by Charith Asalanka and Dhananjaya de Silva, was filed on behalf of almost the entire national squad, including Angelo Mathews, Wanindu Hasaranga, Kusal Mendis, Maheesh Theekshana, and Dinesh Chandimal. Female cricketers have also filed separate petitions.
Appearing for the male cricketers, Counsel Nishan Sydney Premathiratne argued that the IRD’s reasoning was fundamentally flawed. He said the classification based on ‘control’ was invalid as cricketers, while subject to team strategy, make independent and spontaneous decisions on the field—something that cannot be directed by any authority. He also dismissed the claim that being subject to SLC’s rules implies employment, noting that professionals such as lawyers and doctors too are governed by codes of conduct without being employees.
Premathiratne further highlighted that the players had never previously been classified as employees, despite long-standing contractual arrangements with SLC. Many cricketers also hold other professional positions in the Army, Police, and private companies, underscoring their independent status. He added that the IRD acted without prior notice or consultation with the players or SLC, violating principles of natural justice. Moreover, players do not receive employment benefits such as EPF, ETF, gratuity, or pensions—factors inconsistent with the IRD’s claim.
President’s Counsel Kuvera de Zoysa, appearing for SLC, supported the players’ stance, describing the IRD’s move as ‘arbitrary and illegal’. He warned that such a classification could have a damaging ripple effect on the entire cricket ecosystem, creating potential labour law complications and undermining the sport’s financial framework.
The Court of Appeal, maintaining an impartial position, suggested a joint meeting between the players, SLC, and the IRD as a constructive way forward. The case will be taken up for further hearing and submissions on November 18, November 27 and December 2.