Oilfields Workers' Trade Union
| Jurisdiction | Trinidad & Tobago |
| Judge | Permanand J.A. |
| Judgment Date | 28 January 1994 |
| Neutral Citation | TT 1994 CA 3 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 120 of 1993 and 132 of 1993 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Trinidad and Tobago) |
| Date | 28 January 1994 |
Court of Appeal
Permanand, J.A.
Nos. 120 of 1993 and 132 of 1993
Mr. Ramesh L. Maraj and Mr. R. Bissessar for the appellant
Mr. Allan Alexander S.C. and Mr. D. Alexander for the respondent
Jurisdiction - Industrial Court — Appeal from Industrial Court on point of jurisdiction — No restriction that excess of jurisdiction or no jurisdiction can only be the subject of an appeal after the making of the order or award.
Practice and procedure - Stay of proceedings — Appeal lodged on question of jurisdiction — arising from an allegation of bias — Not established beyond all reasonable doubt that proceedings should be stayed.
On August 21, 1992 the appellant company, Nutrimix Feeds Limited through its attorneys at law filed a notice of appeal No. 120 of 1992 against the judgment of the Industrial Court in Trade Disputes Nos. 132 and 133 of 1991 and which disputes by consent were heard together. The Court in its judgment delivered on July 13, 1992 and presided over by their Honours Mr. Addison Khan and Mrs. Ruby Thompson-Boddie found that the dismissals of two (2) workers on February 13, 1991 namely, Palashwar Sockram and Nazroodeen Mohammed were harsh and oppressive and not in accordance with the principles of good industrial relations practice. The court ordered the reinstatement of the aforementioned workers and damages with regard to the. former worker in the sum of $22,000.00 and the latter in the sum of $19,000.00.
The appellant filed the following Grounds of Appeal:–
The Learned Industrial Court erred in law:–
-
“(i)
-
(a) In holding that the appellant/employer produced no evidence to support its allegations that Nazroodeen Mohammed was surplus to the needs of its business, and/or in holding that the appellant/employer's reason for the termination of that said Mohammed's services was not founded on redundancy;
-
(b) in holding that there was any or any sufficient evidence to enable the Court to find that the reasons in the appellant/employer letters terminating the employment of the workers Nazroodeen Mohammed and Phalashwar Sukhram (hereinafter together referred to as “the said workers”) were fabricated and spurious and/or that the said workers were dismissed on the ground of having joined a trade union and that appellant/employer victimised the said workers for their trade union(s activities;
-
(c) In holding, in the absence of any evidence whatever led before the said Industrial Court and/or without the appellant/employer being given an opportunity of being heard and/or in contravention of section (9 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, Ch. 88:01 (hereinafter called “the IRA”) that the workers were victimised and/or dismissed because of their joining a trade union and because of their trade union's activities;
-
(d) In holding that the submissions by the appellant/employer with reference to the termination of the said workers were unacceptable in the circumstances obtaining and if so, in failing to exercise its powers under section 8(5) of the IRA and requiring further oral evidence and argument;
-
(e) In failing to give any or any proper weight to the provision ofsSection 10(3) of the IRA that the award of the Industrial Court in a trade dispute must be fair “having regard to the interests of the persons immediately concerned and the community as a whole…and to act in accordance with the substantial merits of the case before it;”
-
-
(ii) In that it failed properly to instruct itself and to act judicially in its evaluation of the evidence before it and the particular determinations reached by it as set out at sub-paragraph (a) to (e) to paragraph (i) hereof.”
and accordingly sought an order setting aside the judgment or that a new trial be ordered.
Also before the Industrial Court listed for hearing are trade dispute no. 112 of 1991 between Oilfield Workers Trade Union and United Hatcheries Limited No. 113 of 1991 between Oilfield Workers Trade Union and Nutrimix Feeds Limited. In trade dispute No. 112 of 1991 - fourteen (14) workers whose names are listed in an Appendix were given letters of dismissal on February 14, 1991.
In trade dispute No. 113 of 1991 - thirty (30) workers were given letters of dismissal on February 14, 1991. The Respondent Union contends that all the aforementioned workers had joined the Union and accordingly their dismissals were unfair, unjust and contrary to the principles of good industrial relations.
For United Hatcheries Limited it is contended that the workers on the morning of February 15, 1991 clocked in as usual, then lift the promises and went to a strikes camp opposite Nutrimix Feed Mills and refused to return to their place of employment and the Company contended that the workers took concerted and illegal strike action. As a result the Company suffered severe losses to its batch of hatching eggs and baby chicks.
With regard to trade dispute No. 113 of 1991. Nutrimix Feeds Limited contended that on February 14, 1992 the workers reported for duty and sought to discuss with the Factory Manger the termination of two (2) workers namely, Palashwar Sockram and Nazroodeen Mohammed and thereafter the workers left the Company's premises and went to an open space opposite the premises and pitched a camp and accordingly the Company contended that the workers took illegal strike action.
On October 5, 1993 the appellants filed a summons in Civil Appeal No. 132 of 1993 with regard to trade dispute Nos. 112 and 113 of 1991 seeking the following relief:–
-
(1) A Stay of Execution of the Order of His Honour Mr. Addison M. Khan in ordering the hearing of Industrial Dispute No. 112 of 1991 and Industrial Dispute No. 113 of 1991 to proceed on 30th November, 1993, until the hearing and determination of the Appeal pursuant to Order 59, rule 20 (1) (b) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Judicature.
-
(2) Further and/or alternatively a Stay of Proceedings in respect of Industrial Dispute No. 112 of 1991 and Industrial Dispute No. 113 of 1991 until the hearing and determination of the Appeal pursuant to Order 59, rule 22 (1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Judicature.
-
(3) An Order pursuant to Order 59, rule 41 (1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Judicature that the Appeal be deemed urgent.
-
(4) Such interlocutory and/or interim orders and directions as the court considers necessary to preserve the rights of the appellants/employers.
-
(5) Costs of an occasioned by this application be provided for.
On January 14, 1994 leave was sought and granted by the court to amend paragraph 2 of the aforementioned summons to add “or under the inherent jurisdiction of the court”. An Affidavit was filed by attorney atlLaw, Ronnie Bissessar in support of the summons.
At paragraph 6 of his affidavit he deposed that at the commencement of the hearing of trade dispute Nos. 112 and 113 of 1991 on July 13. 1993, counsel on behalf of the appellants made an application that His Honour Mr. Addison Khan do disqualify himself from hearing or presiding over the determination of trade dispute Nos. 112 and 113 of 1991 as there was a serious likelihood of bias on the part of the learned judge.
Submissions were made before His Mr. Khan, Acting president of the Court by counsel for the appellants and counsel for the respondent and on September 13, 1993 he gave his Ruling whereby he rejected the application and ordered the hearing of the disputes on November 30, 1993.
A Notice of Appeal No. 132 of 1993 was filed on September 27, 1993 against the decision of His Honour Mr. Addison Khan dated September 13, 1993 and seeking an order that trade dispute Nos. 112 and 113 of 1991 be heard and determined before a different bench.
The Grounds of Appeal inter alia are as follows:- The learned judge erred in law:–
“(1) In holding that he had jurisdiction to hear and/or determine trade disputes Nos. 112 and 113 of 1991 (hereafter “the instant matters”). The objection to his jurisdiction was that he had presided over the bench which heard and determined the same or similar matters in trade disputes Nos. 132 and 133 of 1991 (hereafter “the earlier matters”). The learned judge failed to appreciate and/or grapple with the application made to him to disqualify himself in that the submission was that the findings of facts made by the learned judge in the earlier matters were so intertwined and/or interwoven with the issues of facts to be determined in the instant matters before him that it would be a serious breach of the rules of natural justice for him adjudicate upon the facts in the matters before him and that he had therefore lost jurisdiction to hear the instant matters.”
Particulars were also included.
“(2) In failing to appreciate that the nature of the submissions made to him on behalf of the appellants/employers was not that he should disqualify himself merely because he had presided over the bench which heard and determined the earlier matters, but that the findings made by him in the earlier matters are so intertwined with the findings he has to make in the instant matters and/or the findings made by him in the earlier matters are likely to prejudice his assessment of the evidence in the instant matters that it would amount to a breach of the rules of natural justice and/or an act in excess of jurisdiction for him to proceed to hear the instant matters.”
On November 12, 1993 the appellant - Nutrimix Feeds Limited filed a summons in Civil Appeal No. 120 of 1992 seeking the following:–
-
(1) The Appeal herein be deemed urgent and ought to be placed on the list for hearing as soon as it is practicable in priority over all appeals on the list pursuant to Order 59, rule 41 of the Rules of the Supreme Court.
-
(2) The Registrar of the Court of Appeal to take the necessary steps to have the...
To continue reading
Request your trial