Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court dismisses appeal from the Labour Court on a point of law concerning the payment of wages to a civil servant who maintained that he had been fulfilling duties at executive officer level but was only paid at clerical officer level, on the grounds that there was evidence before the Labour Court on which it could conclude that there was no procedure being followed which would create a rate of pay property payable other than that which was received, and no procedure was followed in order to secure the civil servant a higher grade or acting up/higher duty allowance.
Employment law - appeal on a point of law – payment of wages - employed at clerical officer grade but maintains that for some considerable time he has been fulfilling the duties of a geographic information system technician (“GIS technician”) at executive officer level, which attracts a higher rate of pay – argued that the claim had not been filed within the appropriate time limits - Labour Court focused on how wages become properly payable to a civil servant in the Department - whether, at the material time, a rate of pay was properly payable to the appellant, higher than that which was actually paid to him - mechanisms employed to assign a rate of pay, or a grade, to a civil servant in the Department - Labour court found that no procedure had been followed by the Department which would create a rate of pay properly payable to the employee other than that which he did receive at the material time – appeal to the High Court – factual background - role of the court on appeal – preliminary issue - obligation on a decision maker to provide reasons for its decision - fact that this was a procedure which was acceded to at the time, and upon which submissions were made led the Court that it would be inappropriate to interfere with the determination of the Labour Court on this basis - satisfied that there was material before the Court upon which it was open to it to conclude as it did – failed to discharge the onus of proof which is upon him – appeal dismissed.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.