Maul v Verave [2000] PGDC 45; DC377 (20 September 2000)

DC377

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

CASE NO 2597 OF 2000

BETWEEN

John Maul
Complainant

V

Geno Bob Verave
Defendant

Mr. Lova S. Geita
August, 20 September 2000

Counsels
Complainant In Person
Defendant Not Present

EX PARTE DECISION

GEITA I.S. - The complainant makes a claim from the defendant for monies, which he asserts the defendant owes him. The claim arises from unpaid wages totaling K2000 whilst being employed by the defendant as a Maintenance Supervisor. In a supporting affidavit the complainant said he started working for the defendant from February through to June without being paid his fortnightly wages of K250. The defendant's building contract secured business at Port Moresby International High School in February and at Korobosea International Primary School. The complainant was engaged as Maintenance Supervisor on both job doing maintenance and renovation work. During those months the complainant faithfully worked for the defendant, having been paid only once in February until work was completed in June this year.

According to the complainant the defendant has received all monies for work done at both schools and yet he has failed to pay the complainant his entitlements. The defendant, having failed to answer summons on 15 August the court proceeded ex parte trial on 29 August 2000 pursuant to Section. 143 of District Courts Act Ch. No. 40. There is evidence of proof of service dated 9 August 2000.

Although the complainant has not given this court a latest copy of his pay slip to show at what level he was paid, I did not envisage one to be made available as does happen with most one man operated building contractors. I say this because their operations are more or less dependent upon the availability of work. If there is work, they work, if there is none all workers are laid off until such timework is found. Nevertheless I am satisfied that the job of a Maintenance Supervisor is a very demanding job in the building trade and could easily fetch a wage of K.250 per fortnight and even higher.

In my view K.250 per fortnight is a reasonable wage and not excessive.

Having considered and determined the complainant's evidence by way of affidavit pursuant to Section 146 District Courts Act Ch No. 40 I am satisfied that the complaint is made out on the civil balance of probabilities. I will order the defendant to pay the sum of K2000 within four weeks to the complainant together with interest at 8% plus the cost of these proceedings.

Orders accordingly.