Union of Commercial and Industrial Workers v People's Restaurant and Bar, Radoonath Deonarini, Ann Marie Rattansingh

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Valere, A.J.
• Judgment Date: 08 April 1993
• Court: Industrial Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Docket Number: No. 9 of 1992
• Date: 08 April 1993

Industrial Court

Valere, J.; Harris, J.

No. 9 of 1992

Union of Commercial and Industrial Workers

and

People's Restaurant and Bar, Radoonath Deonarini, Ann Marie Rattansingh

Appearances:

Mr. K. Gonzales, President General.

Mr. R. Deonarine, Manager.

Industrial law - Termination of employment — Retrenchment — Retrenchment and Severance Benefits Act, 1985 — Claim for severance benefits on behalf of two (2) workers — No denial by employer that workers severed and payments due to them under statute — Ordered that specific sums be paid to workers by specific dates.

Valere, A.J.

1 This is a dispute brought under the Retrenchment and Severance Benefits Act No. 32 of 1985 by the Union of Commercial and Industrial Workers' (hereinafter referred to as “the Union”) against Radoonath Deonarine and Ann Marie Rattansingh trading as People's Restaurant and Bar.

2 The dispute arose over the non-payment of severance to one Justina Thomas and one Omega Williams (hereinafter referred to as “the workers”) who were both employed by the Company.

3 The matter first came to the court on the 5th May, 1992 and parties were summoned to appear before the President on the 26th June, 1992 at which time directions were to be given by the President. On the 26th June, 1992 the Union was represented, nobody appeared on behalf of the Company. At directions, the President directed that both parties were to file evidence and arguments on or, before the 28th August, 1992 six copies to the court and that the Registrar was to deliver a copy of the evidence and arguments of each party to the other on or before 4th September, 1992. It was also directed by the President, that the matter be put for hearing on the 16th November, 1992. The Union filed its written evidence and arguments, but the Company failed to file its written evidence and arguments.

4 The matter came up for hearing on the 16 ^th November, 1992. At that hearing, the Union was represented. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the company and up to that time it did not file its evidence and arguments. The court directed if the Company failed at the next hearing to file its written evidence and arguments the matter would be heard ex parte and it was fixed for hearing on the 29th January, 1993.

5 At that hearing the Company was represented by Radoonath Deonarine, General Manager. The time to provide evidence arid arguments, by the Company was further extended to the 26th February, 1993. Six copies were to be filed with the Registrar and two copies directly to the Union. It was also directed, if the Company failed to comply with the directions, the matter would be heard ex parte. Further hearing was fixed for April 8th, 1992.

6 The matter was called this morning April 8th, 1992. The Union was duly represented by Mr. Gonzales, President General. Up to 9.25 a.m. there was no appearance on...