[2020] KEELRC 706 (KLR)

[2020] KEELRC 706 (KLR)

The court found that the grievants were declared redundant as a result of the non-renewal of the catering contract by Nairobi Gymkhana Club, which was beyond their control and not due to any misconduct. The respondents failed to provide evidence that the grievants absconded duty or to demonstrate compliance with the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELRC 706 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kenya Hotels and Allied Workers Union; Respondent: Anoop Garg; Respondent: Umakant J. Dave; Respondent: Daves Catering
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 256 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed. Judgment entered for the claimant.
Judges
DO Ogal
Legal Topics
Redundancy Procedure, Terminal Benefits, Unfair Termination, Collective Bargaining, Employee Rights
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Redundancy Procedure Terminal Benefits Unfair Termination Collective Bargaining Employee Rights

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 24
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenya Hotels and Allied Workers Union

Applicant

Anoop Garg

Respondent

Umakant J. Dave

Respondent

Daves Catering

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the grievants were declared redundant or absconded duty as alleged by the respondents.
  2. 2 Whether the redundancy was procedurally compliant with the Employment Act.
  3. 3 Whether the grievants are entitled to terminal dues and other remedies sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the grievants were declared redundant as a result of the non-renewal of the catering contract by Nairobi Gymkhana Club, which was beyond their control and not due to any misconduct. The respondents failed to provide evidence that the grievants absconded duty or to demonstrate compliance with the statutory redundancy procedure under Section 40 of the Employment Act. The respondents did not dispute the employment status of the grievants or the computation of terminal dues. The redundancy was therefore unprocedural, and the grievants were entitled to terminal benefits as claimed, including pay in lieu of notice, leave, public holidays, severance pay, overtime, and...

Court Disposition

Claim allowed. Judgment entered for the claimant.

Orders

  • Respondents to pay each grievant the specified terminal dues as awarded in the judgment.
  • Respondents to issue certificates of service to all grievants as per Section 51 of the Employment Act.