JUDGMENT
In 1989 the respondent, La Tsiabon, took up
employment with the appellants, Deou Motors (then known as Laho Moto Motors). In
1994 he was promoted to Personnel Manager and from 1996 to 1999 he held that
post and that of assistant manager. In the
middle of 1999 his pay and
allowances totalled Vt 150,000 per month and he was provided with a house
and a vehicle.
Between April 1998 and Au1999 he underwent two
operations and was absent from work on sick leave on a number ober of occasions.
In September 1998 he was a warning letter about his
work performance. On 28th June 1999 he was demoted, his shis salary was
reduced
from Vt 150,000 to Vt80,000 per month, and the benefits of house and car
were removed. On 1st September 1999
his pay was reduced to Vt50,000 per
month and he was placed as sales assistant at his work.
The respondent took a month�s unpaid leave from 6th
ember. Upon his return on 4th October he asked the appellanellants to dismiss
him. They refused. On 25 October he wrote a letter setting out his
grievances and requiring reinstatement of his salary
of Vt 150,000 per month
and the benefits of house and vehicle. He stated if this didn�t occur within
14 days he would
take further action.
The appellants did not comply his request. Mr.
Tsiabon therefore ceased working for the company on 7th November.
On 19th October 2000 he filed a Writ alg
constructive dismissal and claiming pay in lieu of u of notice, severance pay and
other items.
The learned trial Judge dsed the constructive
dismissal claim, but found the respondent had terminated his emps employment in
good faith and that, as he had worked for the appellant for more than ten
years, he was entitled to severance pay of
Vt 825,000. This figure was
calculated by taking half a monthly salary of Vt 150,000 and multiplying it
by 11 the number
of years of his employment. Counsel addressed the Judge
upon costs, but there has apparently been no ruling thereon.
The grounds of Appeal are �His Lordship erred in law
in holding (among other things):
(a) that the respondent has resigned from mployment
with the Appellant in good faith; and
(b) that the respondent is entitl be paid severance
allowance in the sum of Vt825,000�,000�.
It was suggested there were inconsistencies in the
judgment, the respondent�s letteletter of October cour could not amount
to
a resignation and the finding of good faith could not be sustained. The
appellant argued that the figure of Vt 50,000,
not Vt150,000 should have
been used when calculating the severance pay. The appellants claimed costs
in both courts.
There was no cross appeal.
">
In these circumstances this Court need only e if the
trial Judge was right in finding the respondspondent was entitled to severance
pay, whether the figures used to make the calculation were the correct ones
and whether there should have been any deduction
therefrom.
ass="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
Section 54 of the Ement Act Cap 160 (as amended)
states-