SJ Seychelles Ltd v Umashankaranayan (CA 22/2020) [2021] SCSC 1024 (21 October 2021)

SUPREME COURT OF SEYCIIELLES Reportable [201 ... J scsc 8+6 , CA 2212020 (Appeal from ET 73/2020 In the matter between: SJ SEYCHELLES LTD (rep. by) and Appellant BRAGANYAUMASHANKARANAYAN (rep. by) Respondent Neutral Citation: SJ Seychelles Ltd v Umashankaranayan (27th October 2021). Pillay] Appeal from Employment Tribunal By way of written submissions 27th October 2021 Before: Summary: Heard: Delivered: (CA 2212020) [2021] sese ~ ORDER The appeal is dismissed. JUDGMENT PILLAY J [1] The Appellant appeals against the order or the Employment Tribunal dated 23rc! October 2020 for Rupees 3, 000 for food and sustenance on the grounds that: (1) The Learned Tribunal's order improperly went bevond the application asfiled by the Respondent wherein only the sum ofRupees it was therefore improper for the Tribuna/to go beyond the application itself to increase the sum for food. I, 50() \I'os being sought for food, (2) The Learned Tribunal erred in holding that money ought to he given to the Respondent for food whenfood is provided/or through their staff canteen, and the Respondent who used to eat in the canteen could continue to do so whilst her case is being determined hy the Tribunal. all staffofthe Appellant [2] The Appellant prayed for an order setting aside the order 0 f the Tribunal, allowing the appeal and order that: (1) Food be provided through the staff canteen to the Respondent (2) That the issue of allowanceforfood be determined afresh by the Employment Tribunal, that their current order went beyond the original application of the in view of the fact Respondent. [3] Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Respondent during the course of her employment was provided with food from the staff canteen and there was no reason why this could not continue to do so until the final determination of the matter. [4] Learned counsel submitted that the issue of food allowance needed to be sent back to the Employment Tribunal as the Tribunal went beyond the original application granting a rei ief not sought, relying on the case of Vel v Knowles (L998-1999) SCAR 157. [5] Learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Appeal arises from an interim order of the Tribunal and as such leave should have been sought to appeal. [6] The order of the 22nd October 2020 reads thus: We note the application of the Applicant claiming .r:..,R/5. 000 per month forfood sustenance. There appears to be no area in the contract defining a sum for payment offood allowance. The Respondent does not have afigurefor sums spentforfood in the canteen per person. We have very little to go on We order the Respondent to provide proof 0/ how much is spent per person onfood. Untif that date we (ire of is more than reasonable. the view that a sum oj'SR3000forjhodj()J' the Applicant with SR3000 forfood We hereby order that the Respondent provide the Applicant allowance until thefinal determination oithis case This is SR3000 per month. The Respondent may apply 10 vary this order "pOI? proofofhow much they spend per person. We so order. Effective as oftodays dole Thefirst paym.ent is due by 29111 October 2020. [7] The records show that the application for food sustenance was heard on the 22nd October 2020 when the matter came LIpfor the first time. Learned counsel for the Respondent. then Applicant, indicated that there is an application for toad allowance. When the Appellant, then Respondent, indicated that food and shelter wax provided Learned counsel indicated that from the beginning there was no food at the canteen and that per the contract il .vus USDI00. [8] In fact on the Application Form filed on 1,\ October 2020 at page 2 USD 100 is noted as allowances per month. Indeed the Employment Tribunal in its order of22nd October 2020 noted that Applicant was claiming SCR l S. 000. That can only be a mistake as Learned counsel clearly stated on the record, before the Employment Tribunal then that his client was claiming USD 100 as food allowance and even in October 2020 the US Dollar 1lL'\ cr came to the rate of SCR150 to the Dollar. [9] The order of the Employment Tribunal clearly reads: We order the Respondent Until that dale we are ofthe view that (1.111177 oIS!?3()(){)/(Jl%odjor is more than reasonable. to provide pro ofojIu, II1l1ch is spent per person on/iii «]. the Applicunt \1' [10] The order for SCR 3000 per month for food is not set in stone. All the Appellant had II) do was to come back with a breakdown of the amounts spent on lood for each worker an.: ihe sum would have been varied. That said the claim was for L!SI) 100 and the Tribunal is limited to consider the claim made. [11] In terms of the second ground of appeal. that the Respondent can have food ,II :he Appellant's 19/2020) staff canteen, (!~ [20211 scse 417 (09 July 2021) I believe the f.mployment Tribunal was bcuer in line with MA & Sun Trading Co. Ltd v Sudam(l placed to decide on that issue having heard and observed the parties before it. [12] With regard to the appeal having been filed without leave. Section 4 of Schedule 6 (S r;.,\): EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL provides that the Tribunal may appeal to Any person against whom judgment has been given h, the Supreme Court subject to the same condit ions us appealsfrom a decision Offhe Magistrates' Court. [13] Section 43( 1) and (2) or the Courts Act IIr()\ ide, ~I,I\\i I,;\\ " There shall be no appealfrom any interlocutory judgment of the court '43(1) Any person aggrieved by a/jno//IIG~{!,1711'I7fofthe court in any civil cause 1)1' matter to which he is a party may appeal to the Supreme Court. (2) except where, in the circumstances % has the effect of disposing of the claim. or ot one oithe claims, in the suit, in 11'liich event costs and otherwise as may bejust. the Supreme Court may give leave to appeal particular case. Ihe interlocutory judgment lin such terms as to seciuuv, . [14] In the case of Marzochie vs Toulon (Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2012) [2013) scse 4(, (2<) Y May 2013) CJ N'tende relied on section 43 to come to the conclusion that: "It is necc to seek leave ofthe Suprem« ('III/UfO hri17,'..!. file il/)!)t ,t/ '<.«>. .t-. /Illt done here. 1'17 is accordingly, (it this point. no jurisdiction [t r t'iiler/IIII! liil 'i'!' u] .. \1 hich I parrot. [15] In the circumstances the appeal is dismissed. Signed, dated and delivered at lie du Port .. r2.~t.-. ...~ ~ 4