Asiwata v Loi [2007] PGDC 141; DC811 (15 March 2007)

DC811

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE
SITTING IN ITS CIVIL JURISDICTION]

DCCi 23 of 2006

BETWEEN

STEVEN ASIWATA
Complainant

AND

MRS DINGU LOI
First Defendant

AIYURA NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
Second Defendant

THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Third Defendnat

THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF PNG
Fourth Defendant

Kainantu: I Kurei

2007: March 14, 15

Cases Cited

Nil

References

Nil

Counsel

For the Complainant – In Person
For the Defendants – In Person

14 March 2007

EX-TEMPORE JUDGMENT

Facts

Complainant Steven Asiwata was employed by the Second Defendant as a security guard.

Complainant was laid off by the First Defendant.

When laid off, his (Complainant) entitlements were paid.

Complainant saw Labor Office, Goroka and further calculations were made, which is now the subject matter of this proceedings.

Issue

The employment period?

Was the Complainant duly paid his entitlements?

Are Third Defendant and Fourth Defendant vicariously liable?

Is there a cause of action at all?

Law

Contract Law.

Employment Act.

Evidence

Complainant did work for the Defendants.

The evidence on for how long is being disputed.

The records that this Court had the benefit to view shows clearly there was a Steven employed. However for one reason or another no other name was listed either, Asiwata or Ofu. First Defendant only knows of Steven Ofu, and not Asiwata.

The Complainant witness testify that Complainant did work for Aiyura National High School.

The commenced date was 1995 till 2002, when complainant was terminated.

Complainant also claims overtime since 1995. The time period which is legislatively barred as it is more then six (6) years.

The defence evidence indicates Complainant was employed. The records show as from 2000.

Complainant according to First Defendant was on ancillary Staff/Casual worker status.

What is being claimed is confused by payroll record. (For further information, defence submission points this out).

Consideration

The Complainant is duly bound to prove on balance of prohibition of what he is claiming.

To accept Complainant’s evidence, and make orders on unsubstantiated evidence is very unsafe.

The final conclusion is case not established on balance of probabilities.

Order made accordingly.

For the Complainant – In Person
For the Defendants – In person