SC orders fresh inquiry into alleged deception of 22 Sri Lankan drivers sent to Dubai

By Lakmal Sooriyagoda 

The Supreme Court has directed the Sri Lanka Bureau of Foreign Employment (SLBFE) to immediately commence a fully-fledged inquiry into complaints filed by 22 Sri Lankan drivers who alleged they were deceived after being sent for employment in Dubai. The Court further ordered that the inquiry be completed within three months and that the SLBFE submit its final report to the Supreme Court upon conclusion.

The petitioners, all licensed drivers in Sri Lanka, stated that due to the economic crisis of 2021–2022 and the resulting surge in inflation, they were compelled to seek foreign employment to support their families. They said they had placed “utmost faith and trust” in the SLBFE and applied for employment in response to an advertisement published by Hewas Associates (Pvt) Ltd.

In their Fundamental Rights petition, the drivers sought an order to appoint a steering committee operating under strict timelines to investigate all complaints lodged by them against the SLBFE and Hewas Associates.

President’s Counsel Sanjeeva Jayawardena, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that they had been recruited through an authorised employment agency and were required, under the law, to remain under the strict supervision of the SLBFE—supervision which, he argued, the Bureau had failed to provide.

Jayawardena PC said the petitioners had been promised employment with the Dubai Government’s Taxi Corporation (DTC). Officials from the DTC had travelled to Sri Lanka, interviewed the petitioners, conducted driving tests, and subsequently entered into a tripartite agreement with the petitioners and the recruitment agency. However, upon arriving in Dubai, the petitioners discovered they had been assigned not to the DTC but to an unfamiliar private company named Privilege Ltd., which failed to honour the agreed-upon terms.

As a result, the petitioners were left stranded without proper remuneration or food, forcing their families in Sri Lanka to take loans to support them. This financial distress was compounded by the substantial sums the petitioners had already paid to secure employment—often through borrowing or pawning jewellery—documents of which were tendered to court.