Supreme Court of Mauritius, 8 mai 2024, 2024 IND 13 – Veckranges v Oceamer Ltd
Page 1 Veckranges v Oceamer Ltd 2024 IND 13 THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MAURITIUS (Civil Side) In the matter of:- CN 44/2023 David Benjamin VECKRANGES PLAINTIFF v. OCEAMER LTD DEFENDANT JUDGMENT 1. In his plaint, the Plaintiff claims that his employment with the Defendant was terminated by the Defendant’s director without notice nor justification. He is thus praying for judgment...
2 min de lecture · 423 mots
Page 1
Veckranges v Oceamer Ltd
2024 IND 13
THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MAURITIUS (Civil Side)
In the matter of:- CN 44/2023 David Benjamin VECKRANGES PLAINTIFF v. OCEAMER LTD DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
1. In his plaint, the Plaintiff claims that his employment with the Defendant was terminated by the Defendant’s director without notice nor justification. He is thus praying for judgment in the sum of Rs 36,677.58 corresponding to unpaid wages and other dues under his contract of employment.
2. Despite due service of process, the Defendant failed to appear in Court. In the circumstances, the Court proceeded to hear the case as undefended.
3. At the hearing of the matter, the Plaintiff reiterated under oath the averments of his plaint. He produced a copy of his contract of employment (Document A) and a copy of his payslip (Document B).
Page 2
4. After due consideration of the above, I am satisfied of the veracity of the Plaintiff’s assertions. His case has remained uncontradicted, the Defendant having left default. I find that the Defendant has terminated the Plaintiff’s employment as sales executive without giving him due notice and without justification. The Defendant has further failed to remunerate the Plaintiff for work performed for the period 01 to 16 May 2022 – he was earning a basic monthly salary of Rs 17,000. at the relevant time. I also note that, as per Article 4 of the contract of employment, the Plaintiff was entitled to 1% monthly commission on sales made by him provided the target sales figure of Rs 500,000. is achieved for that month. It is unchallenged that sales to the tune of Rs 730,000. were made by the Plaintiff during the month of April 2022 for which he was not remunerated. In the circumstances, the Plaintiff has established, on a balance of probabilities, that the Defendant is indebted to him in the following sums: (i) one month’s wages as indemnity in lieu of notice: Rs 17,000.00 (ii) outstanding wages for the period 01–16 May 2022: Rs 8,500.00 (iii) commission for the month of April 2022 (1% of Rs 730,000.): Rs 7,300.00 (iv) end-of-year bonus for 2022 pro rata: Rs 3,877.58 TOTAL: Rs 36,677.58
5. I, therefore, order the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff the aforesaid sum of Rs 36,677.58.
08 May 2024
M. ARMOOGUM Magistrate
Sources officielles : consulter la page source · PDF officiel
Supreme Court of Mauritius – public domain
Articles similaires
A propos de cette decision
Décisions similaires
Maurice
Supreme Court of Mauritius
Supreme Court of Mauritius, 15 mai 2026, 2026 PMP 7 - Police v Ravi Kumar Seeborun
Police v Ravi Kumar Seeborun 2026 PMP 7 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PAMPLEMOUSSES CN: 4868/25 In the matter of:- Police v Ravi Kumar Seeborun JUGMENT A. Introduction 1. The Accused stands charged with an offence of Driving without due care and attention in breach of Sections 123C (1)(a) and 52 Second Schedule of Road Traffic Act as amended. 2....
Maurice
Supreme Court of Mauritius
Supreme Court of Mauritius, 14 mai 2026, 2026 PMP 6 - Yoan Jonathan Attiow
Yoan Jonathan Attiow 2026 PMP 6 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PAMPLEMOUSSES CN: 2613/20 In the matter of:- Police v Yoan Jonathan Atthiow JUGMENT A. Introduction 1. The Accused stands charged with an offence of Assaulting an agent of the civil authority in breach of Section 158 and 159 of the Criminal Code. 2. The information avers that on or...
Maurice
Supreme Court of Mauritius
Supreme Court of Mauritius, 13 mai 2026, 2026 SAV 67 - POLICE v K K MOHUR
Page 1 POLICE v K K MOHUR 2026 SAV 67 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAVANNE Cause No.: 1586/24 Police v/s Karan Kumar Mohur Judgment The accused stands charged with the offence of « Breach of Protection From Domestic Violence Act » in breach of Sections 2 and 13(2) of the Protection from Domestic Violence Act. As per the information...