Chand v Director of Agriculture [1992] FJHC 8; HBC1140j.85s (30 October 1992)

Fiji Islands - Chand v Director of Agriculture - Pacific Law Materials

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI

At Suva

Civil Jurisdiction

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1140 OF 1985

BETWEEspan>

NARESH CHAND
s/o Bhagauti Prasad
Plaintiff

AND:

THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
(Ministry of Primary Industries)
Defendant

Mr. V. Parmanandam for the Plaintiff
Ms. E.s. E. Kennedy for the Defendant

JUDGMENT

On the 13th of September 1985 the plaintiff a mechanic by trade joined the Ministry of Primary Industries as a trade assistant on the Rewa Irrigation Project.

Approximately 3 weeks after his engagement the plaintiff's employment was summarily terminated by a letter dated the 4th of October 1985.

The plaintiff then issued these proceedings for wrongful dismissal claiming that "... he was informed upon appointment that (his) job was to be of a permanent nature". This verbal assurance was alleged to have been given at the time by the Assistant Director of Agriculture.

The Ministry in its defence denied that the plaintiff was assured permanent appointment instead he "... was offered casual employment for a period of approximately 3 months on the terms and conditions contained in his contract of employment."

The terms of the plaintiff's 'contract of employment' is relevant and is set out in full below:

"A.290 01/15/1

From: The Director of Agriculture

To: Naresh Chand HS813 &nnsp;&&nsp;;&nspp;&nssp;&nsp;  p;&nssp;  p; &nbp; &nbp; ;&nbpp; &nnsp;&&nsp; Dpan>Date 13.9/spa<(Employee - Name) F.N.P.F. No.

CASUAL EMPLOYMENT - ENGAGEMENT

This is to offer you casual employment as a (a) Temporary Trade Assistant to be engaged on (b) Assisting mechanics duties at (c) Rewa Irrigation Project with effect from (d) 16.9.85.

2. You will be employed until the completion of

the work which is expected to last approximately (e) Three months. You will be given one week's notice prior to termination of your employment.

3. You will be paid at a rate of (f) $1.72 cents per hour plus overtime if necessary. Otherwise your conditions will be as laid down in the J.I.B. Agreement on the Conditions and Rules of Employment for Government Unestablished Employees which is available, for perusal if you so wish, at the office of (g) Lakena.

4. If you agree to accept employment on these conditions you should sign and date the copy of this letter which is attached.

(Sgd.) H.D. Sharma
for Director of Agriculture

Director of Agriculture,

I accept employment on the above conditions.

(Sgd.) N. Chand HS813
(Employee - Signature) F.N.P.F. No.

16.9.85
Date

c.c.
ADA (D&I)
Director of Agriculture - HQ
File"

In his evidence the plaintiff testified that he was 'taken on as a temporary trade assistant' and, although his letter of engagement was for a period of 'Three months' he had attended an interview at which 'the boss' had told him that after 3 months he would be appointed permanently provided his work was satisfactory. He worked as a panel beater.

On the 4th of October 1985 without any prior notice and without any complaints or adverse reports about his work his employment was terminated.

In cross-examination the plaintiff accepted that he had signed his 'letter of engagement' (Exhibit 1) after he had received the verbal assurance of permanent employment and was aware of its contents.

The plaintiff also called Hari Dutt Sharma the Senior Agricultural Officer who was in charge of the Rewa Irrigation Project on which the plaintiff was temporarily engaged to work as a trade assistant.

The officer testified that he had personally recruited the plaintiff and had made it known to the plaintiff at the time that he was being initially employed on a temporary basis and if he performed satisfactorily then his further employment in the project would be considered favourably. He didn't see any problems with the plaintiff's work during the 18 days that he was employed on the Project.

In cross-examination the officer confirmed that the Project was still in existence. He considered Exhibit 1 'a formality' that was adopted when first recruiting people in order to allow the Ministry to gauge the work of new recruits. He had written the plaintiff's 'Letter of Termination' (Exhibit 2) on the instructions of his superior.

Specifically in answer to the question:

Q: Did you say to the plaintiff that he would definitely be employed on a permanent basis?

he firmly replied "A: No."

In all the circumstances having regard to Exhibits 1 and 2 and the oral testimony of the plaintiff and his witness I have no hesitation in finding that the plaintiff's employment was prematurely and improperly terminated in breach of the plaintiff's 'contract of employment' as contained in Exhibit 1.

Equally I am not satisfied that the plaintiff's employment was anything other than as contained in Exhibit 1, namely, on a temporary casual basis and for a period of not longer than 3 months.

Accordingly I award the plaintiff damages as follows:

(a) for loss of wages (calculated on a 40 hour week less tax)
$(60 x 9) = $540.00

(b) for breach of contract - $500
making a total of $(540 + 500) = $1,040 together with costs to be taxed if not agreed.

D.V. Fatiaki
JUDGE

At Suva,
30th October, 1992.

Hbc1140j.85s