SUGAR-worker Sheik Mahazudin, who had been wrongfully dismissed by his employer, Guyana Sugar Corporation Ltd in 1977, took the Corporation to court.

Having lost at the trial, he appealed to the Guyana Court of Appeal, constituted by Justices J. A. Luckhoo, Charles A. Fung-A-Fat and J. Gonsalves-Sabola.
That Court held that the dismissal was wrongful, allowed the appeal, set aside the Order of the trial judge, and entered a new judgment in favour of the appellant.
The facts disclosed that the Appellant was an employee of the Respondent.  He was employed, as of 1973, by the Bookers Sugar Corporation, which became the Guyana Sugar Corporation in 1976.
He was dismissed from employment in September 1977 for not obeying an order, issued to him by the factory manager, to go to the homes of striking workers and convince them to resume work.
At the hearing, the Appellate Court held that the Respondent had wrongfully dismissed the Appellant, in that summary dismissal was only applicable when an employee’s conduct was so bad, it could deeply  impair the basic  confidence necessary between employee and employer.
This not being the case in this instance, the Court felt the Appellant was entitled to compensation for breach of contract, the damages of which are measured as all that the  employee would have earned but  was prevented from earning  by the wrongful dismissal. It was also felt that whereby the contract was terminated by notice, it must be assumed that the employee would have terminated the contract at the earliest possible date.
Damages, in this case, were to be calculated in the sum of three months’ worth of the Appellant’s compensation, since he was entitled to three months notice on being served a dismissal letter.
In arriving at its decision, the Appellate Court made reference to 25 cases.  Mr. Ashton Chase, S.C., Mr. D. Dial and Mr. C. R.  Ramson, S. C., for the Appellant and Mr. C. L. Luckhoo, S.C.  and Mr.  Edward Luckhoo for the Respondents.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Luckhoo said:  “The Appellant’s  claim in the High Court  for damages for  wrongful dismissal against the Respondents was dismissed with costs, which led  to the Appellant  appealing against the High Court ruling.
“The Appellant’s services over the years as an employee  of the Respondents  and  their predecessors commencing in  January, 1947 ,until he was dismissed  in September,  1977,   have been fully set out  in the  judgment  of the  trial judge.
“He was dismissed  from employment  for not obeying  an order  issued to him  by the  factory manager  at Blairmont Estate on 24th  August, 1977 ,  to go  to the homes of factory  workers on strike  in order to try  to get  them to resume work.  There is no need   for me to relate   the facts leading up to the time of dismissal as they have not been challenged in this appeal lodged against the decision.
“The Appellant seeks a reversal of that judgment  and an entering  of judgment  in his favour for damages which flowed  from the wrongful termination of his contract  of employment,  as well as for money which he alleges he earned for overtime services rendered   during the subsistence of the employment.
“The first question, on the answer to which so much hangs, is: What were  the terms and conditions of the contract  of employment under which the Appellant  performed  his services ?  Counsel for the Appellant contends it was an oral contract  that commenced   with the employment  of the Appellant as a shift manager of the factory operations  department d in June  1973.
“That was when  the job specification  for shift  manager  contained  in the document  tendered in evidence  as Exhibit ‘B’  was handed  to him on the abolishing, as Counsel  put it,  “of the post of Assistant Chemist and  the creation of a new  post  of shift manager.”  It  was argued that   that included within the contract  were  the  provision of exhibit “B” and  those  of another  document taken in evidence as Exhibit “Q” headed “Conditions  of Service” which late document, Counsel said,  had formed part  of the contract of employment  of the abolished  post of assistant chemist but was accepted  and agreed to by the Appellant  as forming part  of his new contract.
“The Respondents disagreed wholly with that approach.   They maintained  that  the terms and conditions set out in  the document Exhibit “A” relating to the post of assistant  chemist were those which  governed the case ;  that  there was  a restructuring  in  1973  of the senior staff  in the factory department and the postn of assistant chemist  was redesigned  shift manager:  By reason  of nationalism, Bookers Sugar Estates, Limited  came under the control of the Respondents  and by letter dated  27th July, 1976,  tendered in evidence  as Exhibit “U”, all  the former employees of Bookers Sugar Estates Limited (including the Appellant)  were accorded the same conditions  of employment  as existed at nationalization in May,1976.   The contents of the various documents  adverted to  will be set out during the curse of the judgment.
“Emphasis was laid ”by Counsel for the Appellant on three factors in support of his submission that a new contract  came into operation in June, 1973.  They were (a)  that from that point  of time  the Appellant was required to work on shifts , whereas, before , that was not so ; (b) he was directly responsible  to the assistant  Factory Manager (production), whereas, before , he was directly responsible to the senior chemist ; (c) the post of shift manager carried with it wide   responsibilities  which entailed those  of a chemists as well as  of an engineer . There was an engineering input  into the job , which as assistant chemist the Appellant was not required to do , and,  thus,  the system of  working  underwent  ‘a qualitative change’.
“Counsel referred  us to the evidence  of the Appellant  in re-examination which showed what were the changes  in the nature  of the duties  having regard to the job  specification (Exhibit ‘B’) of shift manager. The submission was that  the trial  judge’s findings were wrong when he held that he  did not  consider the post of shift manager   a new post, that the duties  of the former assistant  chemist  were the same, or substantially  the same as,  those of shift manager, the `judgment concluded.