Jul 19, 2016, 10:29 AM
The Kanifing Industrial Tribunal chaired by Magistrate Abeke on 21 January 2011 entered judgment in favour of Shyben Madi & Sons.
Shyben Madi & Sons, awarded cost of D2,000 to be paid by the plaintiff, Bakary Jallow, was represented at the Industrial Tribunal by Lawyer Badou S.M. Conteh.
Bakary Jallow sued Shyben Madi & Sons at the Industrial Tribunal, claiming D10,790 being arrears of unpaid salary for the month of January 2009. D40,000 was also claimed by the plaintiff for overtime, leave and commission.
According to the particulars of the claim, the plaintiff started working for the defendant in August 2008.
Jallow's claim further stated that his salary had not been paid for the month of January 2009, and he had not been given any reason for not paying his salary.
He indicated that the defendant refused to pay his salary based on no grounds, and that due to the action of the defendant, he had suffered loss.
After perusing through the pieces of evidence from both parties, Magistrate Abeke told the tribunal that a total of five exhibits were tendered by the plaintiff to support his claim while the defence tendered two exhibits to support their case.
Delivering his judgment, he said that defence exhibit two was the salary advice for the period ending January 2009, stating therein an amount of D10,616,72 to the plaintiff, Bakary Jallow, by the defendant.
Magistrate Abeke added that under defence exhibit two was the cheque and cash payment voucher of D11,866.72, dated 3rd January 2009 and paid to Standard Chartered Bank in favour of the plaintiff, being his payment of sales and leave allowance for the month of January 2009.
“Now, in the light of defence exhibit two above, the question is: what is the claim of the plaintiff all about?” the magistrate posited.
Hence the plaintiff admitted he was paid January 2009, salary and other entitlements as evidenced by the defence’s exhibit two, there was no claim before the tribunal, the magistrate ruled.
He stated further that exhibits two, seven and eight showed that the plaintiff’s complaint in his praecipe and particulars of claim had fully been complied with by the defendant.
"It is settled that where an employee accepts salary in lieu of notice of termination of his appointment and other entitlements, he should not be heard complaining," the trial magistrate told the tribunal.
He indicated that in the light of the foregoing, the tribunal found the entire claim of the plaintiff not sustainable in law.
"The claim is baseless, misleading and unwarranted," he said, adding that the tribunal had found the defendant not liable and therefore the claim was dismissed.