Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2007] All ER (D) 301 (Jun)
Neutral Citation: [2007] UKPC 43
Court: Privy Council

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Carswell, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood and Lord Mance

Judgment Dates: 25 June 2007


Mauritius - Employment - Termination - Unjustified termination of agreement - Dismissal for misconduct - Whether dismissal effected within seven days of completion of disciplinary committee hearing - Whether termination of respondent's contract of employment unjustified - Labour (Mauritius) Act 1975, s 32.

The Case

Mauritius Employment. Although it might seem strange to describe the termination of an employee's employment for established misconduct as unjustified merely because the necessary notice reached the employee eight, rather than seven days after the completion of the disciplinary hearing, nevertheless, the legislature in Mauritius had adopted a policy of laying down a fixed time limit with the aim of ensuring that both parties knew where they stood. In the instant case the company was not entitled to dismiss the respondent for alleged misconduct under s32(1)(b) of the Labour (Mauritius) Act 1975.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.