Mary Pitchammal Sugumar v. Mohan Narasimhan

HCLA000159/1995

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

LABOUR TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO. 159 OF 1995

(CLAIM NO. E2840/95, C/C E2841/95)

____________________

____________________

Coram: Hon Mr Justice Cheung in Court

Date of Hearing: 30 January 1996

Date of Delivery of Judgment: 30 January 1996



_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________



1. The Appellant was the employee of the Defendant and has sought various relief under the Employees Ordinance in the Labour Tribunal.

2. The claims are one month's wages in lieu of notice, arrears of wages, annual leave, statutory holiday pay, air ticket, travel expenses, underpayment of wages, and 48 rest days' pay. The learned Presiding Officer, after hearing the parties, allowed certain claims which were admitted by the Defendant and dismissed the other claims. In a very careful reason for decision he analysed the evidence and provided reasons for his conclusion. The decision was based on a finding of fact.

3. What took this case out of the ordinary is that the Appellant sought a review of the decision on the ground that the interpreter at the hearing had allegedly refused to hand up to the Presiding Officer a letter which the Appellant intended to produce. She also complained that the interpreter was observed arriving in the same taxi as the Defendant and was talking to him.

4. The Presiding Officer refused to review his decision. Whether the document the Appellant intended to produce has any effect on the decision is a matter I cannot go into, however the contention that she was precluded from producing the letter and the arrival of the interpreter with the Defendant are matters which the Presiding Officer should inquire.

5. As such, I shall direct, pursuant to s.35(1)(c) of the Labour Tribunal Ordinance, that the case be remitted to the Presiding Officer with the following directions:

(i) to hear evidence from the Appellant, the Defendant and the interpreter on matter relating to the Appellant's complaint as set out in her letter of 11th October, 1995, and

(ii) to consider, where appropriate, how such evidence would affect his decision given on 5th October, 1995.







Representation:

Appellant/Claimant Mary Pitchammal Sugumar appeared in person

Defendant/Respondent Mohan Narasimhan appeared in person

