Lalji Naran v. United Construction Co. Ltd. Civ. App. 28-D-67; 6/9/68; Saudi J.

Lalji Naran v. United Construction Co. Ltd. Civ. App. 28-D-67; 6/9/68; Saudi J.

Appellant (original plaintiff) sued his former employer for; (1) Shs. 2,560/- for work done on Sundays and public holidays, and Shs. 936/- for overtime work; (2) Shs. 1,200/- salary for one month in which appellant had been in the Hospital; (3) return of Shs. 1,000/- deposit made by appellant to respondent for a security bond from Immigration office during term of employment; and (4) Shs. 750/- in lieu of local leave. District Court ruled for the respondent on all issues holding; (1) the employment contract made no reference to additional services, and the Employment Ordinance was inapplicable because appellant’s salary was too high; (2) the employment contract was silent on the issue of payment during illness not connected with employment. No district court holding on claims (3) and (4) is reported.

            Held: (1) Although the Employment Ordinance is inapplicable, appellant is entitled to remedies under the general law of contract, and Sec. 70 of the Contract Ordinance (Cap. 433) clearly entitles appellant to payment for overtime if the employment contract is silent. However, appellant has burden of proof that overtime work was actually performed and he failed to sustain the burden. (2) Where the contract of employment is silent on payment during period of illness not connected with employment, the common law provides that the employee is entitled to wages during the period of incapacity providing that his employment contract has not been terminated. (3) Respondent’s defence that appellant had done nothing to release respondent from its bond with Immigration office is not supported by facts, the evidence indicating that respondent had been released from its bond. Appellant therefore is entitled to return of deposit (4) Respondent’s defence was that at one point during the period of employment he had terminated appellant’s employment and then rehired him a week later, so that appellant had never worked for an entire one year period and therefore was not entitled to leave. Held that by rehiring appellant at an increase in salary, respondent had waived right to dismiss appellant (which originally existed), so that the employment should therefore be considered continuous and appellant is entitled to leave. Appeal allowed. Lalji  Marn v. United Construction Co. Ltd. Civ. App. 28-D-67; 6/9/68; Saudi J.