Powder Room Services Ltd v Khan [2011] FJHC 828; ERCA3.2011 (23 December 2011)

IN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COURT
AT SUVA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CASE NUMBER: ERCA NO. 3 OF 2011

BETWEEN:

POWDER ROOM SERVICES LIMITED
APPELLANT

AND:

SHAMEEM KHAN
RESPONDENT

Appearances: Mr. G. O'Driscoll, for the Appellant.
Mr. R. Singh, for the Respondent.
Date /Place of Judgment: Friday, 23rd December, 2011 at Suva.
Judgment of: The Hon. Justice Anjala Wati.

DIRECTIONS

1. The appellant filed an appeal against the decision of the Employment Relations Tribunal ("ERT") of the 13th day of December 2010 where it ruled that the respondent was constructively dismissed on the 13th day of February, 2009.
   
2. The tribunal, as a result had ordered the employer to pay Mr. Khan one year's salary as part of the wages lost by him with 5 weeks' salary to be deducted from the same, as the 5 weeks salary was paid to him during termination.
   
3. The appeal was set for hearing on the 2nd day of May, 2011.
   
4. On the date of hearing, Mr. O'Driscoll advised the Court that he was not well and so he requested if the appeal could be heard by way of written submissions.
   
5. Mr Singh, appearing for the respondent also agreed to hearing by way of written submissions.
   
6. The Court gave 14 days to Mr. O'Driscoll to file his written submissions, 14 days thereafter for Mr. Singh to file his reply and thereafter 14 days to Mr. O"Driscoll to respond, if necessary.
   
7. Mr. Singh filed his written submissions on July, 2011. However Mr. O'Driscoll did not file any submissions to prosecute his appeal within the required time frame. Till date, the Court has not received any submissions from Mr. O'Driscoll.
   
8. It is pointless to file appeals without prosecuting them as barely any substance can be worked out from the grounds of appeal and I cannot take risk of speculating what the grounds of appeal means.
   
9. The failure to prosecute his appeal should result the appeal being struck out. However, in the interest of justice I will grant the appellant a final opportunity to present itself at the oral hearing on the date I intend to assign after consulting the parties, to prosecute the appeal.
   
10. It is now 7 months that the appellant is sitting with an order for stay of execution of the judgment and not complied with orders to file with submissions. This delay must not prejudice the respondent. The delay should be compensated by an order for costs against the appellant which I intend to fix after the final verdict, upon hearing the parties.
    

Anjala Wati
Judge

23.12.2011
________________________
To:

1. Mr. G. O'Driscoll, for the appellant.
2. Mr. R. Singh for the respondent.
3. File: ERCA No. 03 of 2011.