Rama Krishnarao v Saj Ceramics Ltd [2015] KEELRC 787 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court dismissed a former employee's Kshs 6 million claim, ruling he resigned voluntarily and was already paid everything he was owed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Effect of a flawed pre-court conciliation procedure on the suit
The flawed pre-court procedure did not defeat the suit; the conciliator's rejected recommendation was not binding and the matter was properly before the court.
The court acknowledged the respondent's point that the pre-industrial court procedure was flawed, but held that under the repealed Trade Disputes Act a conciliator's recommendation binds no party unless accepted by both. Since the respondent rejected the labour officer's recommendation, it was not binding, and the dispute was properly before the court for determination.
Whether the claimant was unfairly terminated or tricked into resigning
The claimant resigned voluntarily; no unfair termination, trickery or deception was proved.
The claimant did not deny resigning but alleged the resignation was induced by deceit. He gave no particulars of who tricked him, how, or when. The resignation letter cited personal problems, and the claimant immediately sought his dues and service letter, was paid the same day, and signed a discharge. His conduct was inconsistent with that of a person unfairly terminated or tricked into resigning.
Whether the claimant was paid his entire terminal benefits
The claimant was paid his full terminal dues, indeed more than the law at the time required, and discharged the respondent.
Since the employment ended by resignation, the applicable Employment Act (1976) required payment of salary to date of termination, which was paid for February, March and April 2008. The claimant signed a certificate of discharge confirming no further claims. The repealed Act did not provide pay in lieu of notice for an employee who resigned and did not serve notice, so the claimant received more than he was entitled to.
Entitlement to the specific heads of relief claimed
None of the claimed heads - notice pay, severance, twelve months' compensation, leave days or air tickets - was made out.
Notice pay had been paid and acknowledged; severance applies only on redundancy and the claimant was not declared redundant; twelve months' compensation was introduced by the Employment Act 2007 which was not in force; the leave claim and the consequential air tickets claim were unsupported by evidence, and the contract provided only one air ticket per two-year contract.
Legal principles established
#- A conciliator's recommendation under the Trade Disputes Act is not binding on any party unless accepted by both parties; rejection by one party leaves the dispute properly before the court.
- An employee alleging that a resignation was procured by trickery or deception must plead and prove the particulars of that trickery and deception.
- Severance pay is only payable in the event of redundancy, not on resignation.
- Twelve months' compensation for unfair termination was introduced by the Employment Act 2007 and does not apply to terminations occurring before its commencement.
- A signed discharge certificate acknowledging full terminal dues and absence of further claims discharges the employer from further liability.
Court orders
#- 1.The entire claim is dismissed
- 2.No orders for costs (each party to bear own costs)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Industrial Court under the Employment Act and applicable labour legislation (no specific constitutional article cited in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (4)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Daniel Kiptoo Kaakima v East African Portland Cement Company Limited [2018] KEELRC 2032 (KLR)[2018] KEELRC 2032 (KLR)3 May 2018
- Alfred Omwoyo v Nairobi City County [2017] KEELRC 504[2017] KEELRC 504 (KLR)3 Nov 2017followed
- Paul Olang' Akeyo v Maurice Abura Owino & 5 others [2016] KEELRC 836 (KLR)[2016] KEELRC 836 (KLR)26 May 2016
- Kenya Union of Sugar Plantation & Allied Workers v Sony Sugar Company Ltd [2015] KEELRC 1542 (KLR)[2015] KEELRC 1542 (KLR)20 Feb 2015
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rama Krishnarao v Saj Ceramics Ltd [2015] KEELRC 787 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Not stated in the judgment (Industrial Court cause filed 23rd October 2012). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/787/eng@2015-07-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.