Padapu v Vincent [2000] PGDC 28; DC221 (14 April 2000)

DC221

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

CASE NO 448 OF 2000

BETWEEN

Landa Padapu
Complainant

V

Martin Vincent
First Defendant

Moresby Customs & Cartage Pty, Ltd.
Second Defendant

Mr Iova. S, Geita - Senior Magistrate
Date: 29.02.2000, 31.03.2000, 4, 14.04.2000

Master And Servant – Dismissal – No Contract Of Employment – In The Absence Of Any Statutory Rule Providing For Manner Of Dismissal – The Rule Of Dismissal At will applies.

Case Cited-
The Following Case Cited In This Decision.
Malai Vs. PNG Teachers Association. [1992] PNGLR 568.

REASONS FOR DECISION

14th April 2000

Geita, SM – The Complainant is claiming damages for unlawful termination.

He was employed by Moresby Customs & Cartage Pty Limited (MCC) as a Casual Wharf Clerk in 1996. He claims he gradually became a permanent employee and was promoted to become a Supervisor at BP Oil PNG of which the Company had a contract with.

On 10th March 1998, he was called into the Managers office, paid his last fortnights pay and terminated from work.

He is now suing the Company for the following:-

1. No advance letter of termination

2. No reasons for sacking

3. No leave entitlements

4. No finish pay

He is therefore asking this Court to have him re-instated and or for the Company to back pay him since 10th March 1998. He is claiming a total of K4,400.00. The figure of K6,400.00 claimed in the statement is ignored as it has no legal basis. The cause of action and the amount claimed are those contained in the complaint or summons.

The Complainant is making a claim against the Company for unlawful termination and claimed damages. There is no evidence to show that the Complainant has successfully attained a permanency of employment with the Company. It is therefore unclear as to whether he was still a casual worker when terminated or whether he was a permanent worker at the time of termination. In the absence of these information this Court is entitled to rule that the complainant has failed to prove this point.

The facts of the case here are those of a master and servant. The master has seen fit to dismiss its servant. There is no contract of employment.

In the case of Malai Vs. PNG Teachers Association [1992] PNGLR 568 at p.S7 1 the Supreme Court held that:-

"Once it is realised that this was a simple employer employee relationship with no statutory or contractual right, the common law principle of the right to hire and fire applies and the terms and conditions of employment were no better nor more favourable than those set out in the Employment Act Chapter No. 373."

Since the Complainant has failed to show any rule of law that would give rise to a right of hearing on termination, therefore, could be terminated at any time and for any reason, or for none the complaint must be dismissed. The cause of Malai Vs. PNG Teacher's Association is akin to the facts of this case. The common law principle of the right to hires fire applies here also.

On the question of no advance letter of termination and no reasons for sacking I quote the Supreme Court decision again in reply -P.569.

"Any suggestion of the duty to act fairly and any rights under the Constitution to natural justice only go so far here as to whether he was terminated with proper notice such as that required by under the Employment Chapter No. 373, namely, on two week's notice or a month's notice, depending on the basis of his salary payment in the absence of any contractual arrangement which provides otherwise."

In the evidence before this Court the Complainant was paid his last fortnight's pay and terminated. In the absence of any evidence I will take that payment to mean entitlements in lieu of notice.

I am mindful of the fact that the Defendants have not given evidence and the complaint is entertained Ex Parte. However, given the facts of the case and the Jack of evidence before me I rule that the complaint has not been made out.

I therefore dismiss the complaint.

COURT ORDER.

1. Complaint is dismissed

2. Defendants discharged

In Person: Complainant
In Person: Defendant