IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
WESTERN DIVISION AT LAUTOKA
EXERCICING CIVIL JURISDICTION

ERCC ACTION NO. 03 of 2023

BETWEEN:
NILESH PRASAD
of Tavakubu, Lautoka - Unemployed
PLAINTIFF

AND:
FAIRDEAL EARTMOVING CONTRACTORS PTE LIMITED,
a limited liability Company having its Registered Office
at Top Floor HLB House, 3 Cruickshank Road, Nadi Airport, Fiji
DEFENDANT

APPEARANCE:
Mr. S. Nand with Mr.P. Kumar - for the Plaintiff
Mr. S. N. Chandra -for the Defendant.

DATE OF TRIAL:
5th & 7th March 2025

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
Filed by the Plaintiff on 29th April 2025.
Filed by the Defendant on 4th July 2025.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:
Delivered on 12th December 2025

JUDGMENT

A.	INTRODUCTION:

1.	The Writ of Summons and the Statement of Claim in this action was filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant on 10th July 2023, seeking the following reliefs:

a.	A DECLARATION that the variation of the Plaintiff’s employment Contract via letter dated 27th June 2023 is illegal and void.

b.	A DECLARATION that the termination of the Plaintiff’s Employment Contract was unlawful and unjust.

c.	A DECLARATION that the Plaintiff’s 1st February 2022 Employment Contract is valid.

d.	AN ORDER that the Defendant reinstate the Plaintiff within the terms of 1st February 2022 Employment contract with full back pay from 3rd July 2023 until the reinstatement.

e.	AN ORDER for general damages for breach of Employment Contract.

f.	DAMAGES to be assessed for breach of contract.

g.	DAMAGES to be assessed for wrongful / unlawful termination.

h.	INTEREST from the date of filing of this claim at the rate to be determined, until judgment.

i.	POST-JUDGMENT interest at the rate of 4% per annum.

j.	Costs; and 

k.	SUCH further or other reliefs as this Court deems just in the circumstances.

2.	The Defendant by way of its Statement of defence filed on 4th August 2023, having admitted that there was a contract of service entered between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the annual salary and leave stated in it, denied the rest of the averments and moved for the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s action.

B.	AGREED FACTS & ISSUES:

3.	As per the Pre-trial Conference (PTC) minutes, having recorded the following 1 to 6 agreed facts, parties raised 25 issues from Nos 7 to 31, which I will not reproduce here in order to avoid verbosity.

Agreed Facts:

1.	THAT the Defendant is a limited liability Company ….

2.	THAT there was an employment contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

3.	THAT the elements of the contract include;
i.	Basic Salary $55,000.00- Clause 5.1. ii
ii.	Annual leave – 10 days per year – Clause 8.1

4.	THAT one of the Directors of the Defendant company, namely, Parmod Kumar, is on a Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) case number 404/23 against one Arti. The defendant and Arti were de-facto partners. (it is to be noted that  Parmod Kumar is referred as “ the defendant “ )

5.	THAT Fiji Police force sometime later in June 2023, charged Parmod Kumar for breach of DVRO.

6.	THAT on 3rd July 2023 Legal Lines, a law firm based in Nadi, terminated the employment of the Plaintiff from the same date.

4.	With the above Agreed facts on record, the pivotal issues that beg adjudication here are;

a.	What caused the variation and termination of the Employment contract?
 
b.	Whether the variation of the Plaintiff’s Employment Contract by letter dated 27th June 2023 was illegal and void?

c.	Whether the termination of the Plaintiff’s Employment Contract by letter dated 3rd July 2023 was unlawful and unjust? and 

d.	If the answers to the above issues (b) & (c) are affirmative, what are the remedies that should be granted to the Plaintiff?

5.	I am of the view that the answers to the aforesaid 4 main issues will also provide answers to the majority of the issues raised here and will have the matter in hand disposed fully and finally. Hence, no need would arise to answer all the issues individually.
  
C.	THE TRIAL:

6.	At the two days trial held on 5th and 7th March 2025, the Plaintiff Nilesh Prasad (PW-1), Sanjay Kumar (PW-2) and Vindula Aarti Mala (PW-3) gave evidence for and on behalf of the Plaintiff, by marking the following annexures from the Agreed Bundle of Documents.

a.	Contract of Employment marked as “PEX-1” through “PW-1”

b.	Letter dated 26th June 2023 from the Defendant Company addressed to the Plaintiff
  marked as “PEX-2” through “PW-1”.

c.	Letter dated 27th June 2023 from Messrs. Nand Law addressed to the Defendant
  company Marked as “PEX-3” through “PW-1”

d.	Company search result marked as “PEX-4” through “PW-2”

7.	On behalf of the Defendant Company, Parmod Kumar - Managing Director (DW-1), Shailendra Kumar -Director “DW-2” and Shanur Kumar -Project Manager “DW-3” gave evidence by marking as “Dex-1” the letter dated 27th June 2023 from the Defendant Company addressed to the Plaintiff. 

8.	The said Parmod Kumar (DW-1), Shailendra Kumar (DW-2) and Sanjay Kumar (PW-2), being the own brothers, were running the Defendant Company as Directors thereof, are now in dispute over the company affairs and embroiled in seperate litigation. It is in this backdrop; the Plaintiff, who was a Supervisor and an Operator for the Defendant Company for nearly 13 years, has filed this action against the Defendant seeking the aforesaid reliefs.  

9.	It is to be noted that the Plaintiffs witness “PW-2” namely Sanjay Kumar, was none other than a Director of the Defendant Company and the PW-3, namely, Nidula Aarti Mala is the wife of the said Sanjay Kumar (PW-2). The said “PW 3” Aarti Mala and “DW-1” Parmod Kumar (the Managing Director of the Defendant Company) were, admittedly, defacto partners, who have now fallen apart and involved in the said DVRO matter. 

D.	THE EVIDENCE.

10.	 I shall reproduce bellow the crucial parts of the testimonies given at the trial by the respective witnesses for both parties, which in my view, would amply assist me in answering the issues raised hereof.

a.	The Plaintiff Nilesh Prasad: (Examination in Chief) said, among other things;

That he initially started to work at the defendant company in the year 2010 as a Supervisor and General Machine Operator. After working for some time, he resigned in 2018 and worked for a different company in Suva, however in the same year he left that company and came back to the Defendant Company as he was called back by the company Director Parmod Kumar. From 2010 there was no contract of service signed, but after rejoining the Defendant Company in the year 2018, a contract of service was signed on 14th January 2022 between him and the Defendant Company, according to which his annual salary was $55,000.00 per annum.

That he was paid hose rent and provided with a company vehicle for his personal use and company works, though it was not mentioned in the contract marked as “PEX-1”

That somewhere in mid-June 2023, when he was working on his site in Legalega, Parmod Kumar, came on his site and just told that he had an affair with one lady Aarti chand, has   a DVRO with him,  and commanded  him to go to Arti and tell her to reconcile it . Accordingly, he met Aarti and talked about this, and Aarti in turn had reported it to the Police.  Thereafter, Police took a statement from him and locked and charged Mr. Parmod. After the day they locked Parmod, he received   the letters from the Defendant. That he told Parmod “that is your personal grudge, you don’t bring it in my working site”,  

That he received 2 letters from the defendant on 27th June 2023, one of it was dated 26th June 2023 titled as “Notice -1” and the 2nd letter was dated 27th June 2023 titles as “Notice -2” .  The letter dated 26th June 2023 stated that his contract and salary were being varied from the fixed salary of $55,000.00 to an hourly rate of $8.50 / hour. These letters came as a surprise to him because these were done without any consultation.
 
That in response, he through his Solicitors on 27th June 2023 issued a letter to the defendant company outlining that the Defendant’s actions in reducing his salary without prior consultation, constituted a breach of the employment contract dated 14th January 2022. He also stated that on 3rd July 2023, he received a letter from a law firm, namely, Legal Lines, which informed him that the defendant company had terminated him.

b.	PW-2 Sanjay Kumar:

This witness, who came from the Defendant Company itself in support of the Plaintiff, inter alia, stated;

That the Plaintiff worked as a supervisor and operator, as a benefit to the employee company gave him vehicle facility and house rental, he does not know why the plaintiff was terminated, there was no consultation with him on this as a director of the company. On inquiry from other directors, Parmod Kumar and Shailendra Kumar, he found that it was Parmod Kumar, who terminated the Plaintiff on the legal advice from Mr. Chandra and it was on the authority given to Legal line the plaintiff was terminated, but he never took part in termination. That he was not aware of the termination, Defendant Company did not face any financial crisis in 2023, had there been such a crisis, as a director he would have known it and in his point of view Nilesh was performing well and doing a good job. 

Under the cross examination, he affirmed that when a directive is issued or making a decision all 3 directors have to give consent for it and he had not heard about Fiji Road Authority (FRA) informing that they will be terminating the contracts given to the Defendant.

c.	PW-3 (Aarti Mala)

This witness for the Plaintiff was a former customer of the Defendant company and she had hired them for one of her building projects.  She in her concise and clear evidence stated, inter alia, that;

That she became acquainted with the Plaintiff, who was a Digger operator and supervisor of the Defendant Company, during her building project. That there was an ongoing domestic violence issue between her and Parmod Kumar, the Director of the Defendant Company. She had made a complaint to the Police in relation to the incident where the Plaintiff Nilesh Kumar had made a statement to the Police. Nilesh had told her that he was acting on the instruction of his boss Mr. Parmod to request her to withdraw the Police Complaint that she had filed against Mr Parmod.

d.	DW-1 ( PARMOD KUMAR)

That he had signed the warning letters dated 26th and 27th June 2023, and had given instruction to the Law firm of Legal Lines to terminate the Plaintiff’s employment. The warning letters were drafted by that the Project Manager and he only merely signed it.

That the Plaintiff’s salary was reduced due to financial hardship faced by the company and as a result of Covid -19 Pandemic. Under his cross examination, he confirmed that the contract was entered in the year 2022, it was an indefinite one, he offered him $55,000.00 per Anum salary, the Plaintiff was brought back with an increased salary to work for the company, the contract was signed on 14th January 2022, either party can terminate the contract by giving four weeks written notice. 

He confirmed further that the termination was done by a law firm, he does not have the copy of the letter of authority given to the law firm, he is not sure whether four weeks prior notice was given or not. There were only two warning letters and nothing against the Plaintiff on poor performance.

He also admitted under cross examination that he has no evidence to show that the contracts from FRA were reduced. It was the law firm that terminated the plaintiff’s employment not the defendant company, but there was no letter of authority given (vide page 59 of the transcript).

e.	DW-2 SHAILENDRA KUMAR:

The DW-2 is also a Director of the Defendant Company. This witness testified that the plaintiff’s employment was terminated due to behavioral issues, including habitual late arrivals. No evidence whatsoever was adduced to show that  any warning or counselling  had been provided  to the Plaintiff , nor was any  document submitted to establish that the plaintiff  was an unsatisfactory employee, his conduct had  negatively impacted  site projects or caused  the Defendant Company  to suffer any financial Crisis. 

f.	DW-3 – SHANUR KUMAR: 

This witness is one of the project managers of the Defendant Company. His evidence was objected by the Plaintiff’s counsel on the ground that he did not have a letter of authority from the Defendant Company to give evidence for the Company. This witness testified that he had differences with the plaintiff at the work. He stated that the Plaintiff used to bring the vehicle every morning, but he did not park it back in the company premises in the afternoons and this was his concern. When specifically asked he said he was supposed to park it on the 26th June 2023 He further testified that on being informed by the receptionist to collect the letter from the office, the Plaintiff had come to office, and without signing it only took a photo of the letter dated 26th June 2023 and went. when asked as to what did the plaintiff fail to comply with, his answer was that the Plaintiff failed to receive the letter and misused the vehicle.  (Page 74 of the transcript)

E.	ANALYSIS:

11.	In order to determine whether the variation of contract and the, purported, termination were lawful, I will have to examine whether the reason for the said variation and the allegation for termination were justified and the procedure followed for the same was fair. I will go through reason adduced for variation and the allegation levelled against the Plaintiff for the, purported, termination and the propriety of the termination letter, in order to determine whether the reasons and allegations were met by the evidence and the said letter of termination is a valid one.

12.	As per the plaintiff’s Employment Contract dated 14th January 2022 marked and tendered as “Pex-1”, the Plaintiff was appointed as a Supervisor and Operator for the Defendant Company on an annual salary of $55,000.00. Apart from this, there was an agreement for the Plaintiff to be provided with a Vehicle for his work related and personal usage. Additionally, the Plaintiff was also provided with a monthly allowance of $1,000.00 for house rental. The Plaintiff’s oral evidence in this regard was substantiating his pleadings and the contents of the documents marked. His evidence was crystal clear and  uncontradictory. 

13.	Though, the Plaintiff was subjected to lengthy cross examination by the defence, his evidence remained un-assailed and was further strengthened under the re-examination.

14.	It is observed that by the time the plaintiff entered into the said Employment Contract on 14th January 2022, he was not a novice to the job or the Defendant Company.  He had already worked for the Defendant from the year 2010 and after a short break in 2018, had resumed his work with the Plaintiff in the same year in the same capacity and had continued till the receipt of the purported termination letter dated 3rd July 2023 from Messrs. Legal Lines -Barristers & Solicitors for the Defendant Company.  

15.	It is also to be observed that the propriety of the said termination letter is also under attack by the Plaintiff, which is unusual to have emanated from a Solicitors firm, when they were neither the appointing authority of the Plaintiff nor were authorized by the Defendant Company to send it to the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant Company.

16.	 If the terms and conditions in the employment contract were to be varied, there should have been formal discussion and consultations with the Plaintiff. No such a procedure had been followed in this matter. Further, if a worker of this caliber, with such a long period of service with the Defendant, was to be terminated in this manner there should have been a cogent reason/s to justify such a move.

17.	On careful perusal of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the Plaintiff, and that of his witnesses, it is abundantly clear that the Defendant’s move to vary the principal terms of the contract and thereafter to terminate the Plaintiff from his work at the Defendant Company had actually commenced with the writing of the letter dated 26th June 2023 marked and tendered as “Pex-2”, which in fact had been used by the Defendant  as the 1st ammunition in this process of firing the Plaintiff from his work. 

18.	The said letter dated 26th June 2023 is reproduced bellow for the sake of easy reference and comprehension, contents of which amply demonstrates that the Defendant was all out to terminate the Plaintiff by adducing flimsy reasons narrated therein. The said letter reads as follows;

26th June 2023
Dear Nilesh Prasad.
Tin # 16-28233 -01. 
We hereby would like to thank you for the continuous support and effort you have contributed towards the company.
As you are aware of the current financial crisis the Country and our Company are facing due to the new government in position which we are all adapting to and as a result there is a reduced budget set out from Fiji Road Authority and other relevant government authorities which we are currently working with. (Emphasis mine)
In the past few months, we have faced the hard decision of reducing the workers and exploring the other areas of cost reduction so that our employees do not lose their jobs and that our company could sustain and facilitate the current financial crisis.
After careful consideration, we have decided that the best course of action for our company is to reduce your current fix salary to an hourly rate of $ 8.50 cts / hr including all. 
FNFP & Taxes 
Further to your reduction of salary, we hereby notify that the company will no longer accommodate and pay for any house rent due to mentioned reasons above.
Vehicle Usage Policy)  
We hereby notify that the current vehicle provided by the Company Registration (K oo1) will only need to be used during working hours which are sated bellow. 

Monday to Friday; 7 am to 05 pm. 
Saturday; 7 to 1 pm. (work if required by engineer / employer)  

Please note, company vehicle is to remain on the company premises after working hours everyday and commuting to and from work will be solely your responsibility effective immediately.

Please note, we herein give you immediate notice for the change in your employment with Fair deal Earthmoving contractors PTE Ltd and an implementation on vehicle usage policy effective 27th June 2023.

Once again, we appreciate your continued support and dedication you have given towards the business.

With regards

Parmod Kumar							Sheilendra Kumar
Managing Director							Director.

19.	On mere reading of this letter, any prudent person will easily understand as to what is the motive behind it. Notably, this letter was not served on the Plaintiff on 26th June 2023 itself. The plaintiff was asked by the Defendant’s receptionist to pick it up, and when he went to the company office on 27th June 2023 morning, there were two  letters waiting for him  dated 26th and 27th June 2023 , which were marked as “Pex-2 ” and  “Dex-1” respectively and the contents of “Dex-1” were  more devastating for the Plaintiff. 

20.	None of the above two letters had referred to any prior communication in relation to an incident of misconduct or fault on his part, which could have warranted an action of this nature. As confirmed by the DW-3 in his evidence, the Plaintiff had taken notice of the first letter dated 26th June 2023 only on 27th morning by taking a photograph of it, upon which his Solicitors Messrs. Nand Law had promptly sent reply marked as “Pex-3” on the same date. It is observed that the Plaintiff had acted promptly on receipt of these letters and in filing this action. 

21.	There was no time gap between the letter dated 26th June 2023 marked as “Pex-2” and the letter dated 27th June 2023 marked as Dex -1” (the 1st and 2nd Notices) as both were delivered only on 27th Morning. Further, the contents of the 2nd letter dated 27th June 2023   were more serious and it was like “bolt from the blue” to the Plaintiff, who had dedicated nearly 13 years of his young age for the   advancement of the Defendant Company.

22.	I also don’t find even an iota of evidence to prove that the, purported, financial crisis, referred to in the letter dated 26th June 2023, had in fact led to the termination of the employment contract. The PW-2, a Director of the Defendant Company himself gave evidence for the Plaintiff and testified that there was no such a financial crisis during the time material and he was unaware of such a crisis or about the termination of the Plaintiff. His evidence was not controverted by the defence and it remained unshaken. Further, there was no any evidence to substantiate that the, purported, financial crisis relied on by the Defendant, was the actual reason for this unwarranted termination, which was a clear breach of the Employment Contract. The Defendant did not establish the prevalence of such a financial crisis.  Further, the DW-1 Parmod Kumar in his evidence attempted to rely on the Covid-19 pandemic as a reason for variation of the terms. But the letter dated 26th June 2023 was silent on this. 

23.	An Employer, under section 33(1) (a) and (d) of the Employment Relations Act, may terminate an Employee on account of a lawful cause provided that the Employee is guilty of gross misconduct. Section 1 (a) provides for termination ‘where the worker is guilty of gross misconduct and subsection (d) provides for termination for habitual or substantial neglect of the worker’s duties.

24.	Apart from the purported financial crisis, on which the Defendant primarily relied on for this termination, there was no evidence at all even to arrive at a finding that the Plaintiff was found guilty of any gross misconduct to warrant a summary dismissal. The reasons given by the Defendant in the said letter dated 26th June 2023 to justify the termination was unfounded. The Defendant also could not take defence on the alleged misbehavior mentioned in the purported “First Warning Letter” dated 4th May 2023, the receipt of which was vehemently disputed by the plaintiff.

25.	The actual reason for this hurried dismissal of the plaintiff cannot be anything other than the role played by the Plaintiff, on the instigation of the DW1, Parmod Kumar, to influence his former defacto partner, the said PW-3 Aarti Mala, in relation to the DVRO that had been obtained by her against Parmod Kumar. No sooner, the Plaintiff acted to influence her, she made a complaint to the Police, which resulted in the arrest and detention of Parmod Kumar, who in turn took immediate action to terminate the Plaintiff, when it was not a work related issues to warrant such an action. The agreed facts 4 and 5, the evidence of the Plaintiff and that of the said Arti Mala “PW-3” have convinced this Court to arrive at this finding.

26.	The contract of employment does not state that Mr. Nilesh Prasad’s appointment was temporary. Instead, it stated that it is an indefinite one. A financial Crisis cannot befall overnight. If the Defendant was to terminate the Plaintiff on 3rd July 2023 on account of a financial crisis, they should have foreseen it to some extent and would have avoided signing an Employment Contract on 14th January 2022 for an indefinite period.

27.	The Defendant has attempted to paint a picture of a non-existed financial crisis, in order to terminate the Plaintiff, who became a victim due to the influence exerted on him by the DW-1 Pramod Kumar.

28.	I don’t think that the Plaintiff, Nilesh Kumar, should have taken the brunt of the dispute that existed between the DW-1 and Pw-3 as defacto partners, on which the Plaintiff unnecessarily burnt his hand and paid the highest price of losing his job. All that Nilesh Kumar did was to satisfy his boss DW-1 Pramod Kumar. Before engaging in such a mission, the Plaintiff should have had his second thought that he was not working for Pramod Kumar, but for the Defendant Company. However, I do not find any work- related misconduct on the part of Nilesh Kumar.

29.	The Directors, namely, Pramod Kumar and Sheilendra Kumar, simply chose to terminate the worker’s contract with the Defendant Company, in order to promote the personal agenda of Parmod Kumar.  It appears that they were in some kind of rush to see the Plaintiff is out of employment.

30.	I find that the employer Defendant has not established that the reasons for terminating the Plaintiff was justifiable.  I will now turn to the procedures followed and see if there was compliance of the statutory requirements to carry out the summary dismissal.

31.	In terms of procedure, I do not know whether the Plaintiff was given any certificate of service. If not, he should have been given a certificate of service at the time of his dismissal. That seems to have not been complied with. If he was given his certificate of service at the time of the dismissal, the termination letter would mention that and have with it attached the certificate of service. This would possibly have assisted the Plaintiff in securing a new job in order to minimize his loss of earnings.

32.	I now turn to the authority or powers of the Defendant’s Solicitors Messrs. Legal Lines to terminate the employment of Nilesh Kumar.  The authority/ power to terminate a worker is always vested in the Employer.

33.	One of the Director of the Defendant Company, namely, Sanjay Kumar (PW-2) was unaware of this termination. DW-1 Parmod Kumar, under his cross examination, admitted that all 3 Directors will be equally responsible for any decision. As per the evidence, the requirement of giving 4 weeks’ notice, in terms of the contract, has been blatantly violated by the Defendant employer. This was admitted by the DW-1 under his cross examination as per page 51 of the transcript. There was an unsuccessful attempt on the part of the Defendant to show that the letters dated 26th and 27th June 2023 as “Warning Letters” when those were not so.

34.	The DW-1, under his cross examination, answering the last question in page 59 of the transcript, has admitted that there was no letter of authority given to the Solicitors to terminate the Plaintiff. The conclusion that can be safely arrived at is that there was no authority for the Defendant’s Solicitors Messrs. Legal Lines to terminate the services of the Plaintiff as they sought to do by their letter dated 3rd July 2023.

35.	I therefore find that variation of contract and the termination of Nilesh Prasad were unlawful, in that the reasons for the variation and his swift termination were not justified and that proper procedures were not followed.

36.	On the question of unfair dismissal, there is no evidence that the employer’s conduct was such that caused humiliation to Nilesh Prasad and he suffered anguish, defamation, trauma and ridicule.  He also complains that he suffered embarrassment because the termination.  I have not been shown any evidence in this regard. 

37.	On the question of what is the appropriate remedy, I find that it is appropriate to award lost wages from the date of termination for a maximum period of two (2) years. With his experience in hand, he ought to have secured a similar or higher earning position, for which there is a high demand in the market. 

38.	Having considered all the evidence and for the reasons stated above, I decide   that he should be paid lost wages for a period of two (2) years. He was on an annual salary of $55, 000.00. He was given a vehicle and house rent as well. He was an employee with the FNFP benefits. I find that a sum equivalent to two years annual salary as lost wages would be what the justice demands.

39.	In terms of costs of the proceedings, I find it fair that the employer pays costs to the employee. The trial was for two days and the Plaintiff had retained his Barristers and Solicitors. He had summoned 2 witnesses for him. The employer’s counsel had also not consumed any trial time on irrelevant issues. A lot of time was thus saved. The costs therefore would not be huge against the employer.

F.	CONCLUSION:

40.	I find that the variation of terms and the termination of the worker Nilesh Prasad from his employment with the Defendant Company was unlawful and that he should be paid his lost wages only for a period of 2 years from the date of the termination. Considering the quantum of the back wages he is to receive, Court decides not to award any damages.  There shall be an order for costs to the plaintiff in a sum of $3,000.00 as well. All the monies should be paid to him within 28 days. There shall be post-judgment interest at the rate of 4% from the date of judgment until the full sum is paid and settled.

G.	FINAL ORDERS:

a.	The plaintiff’s action succeeds.

b.	Declarations sought as per paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the prayers to the Statement of Claim are granted.

c.	The Plaintiff is entitled to recover his lost wages for a period of Two (2) years from 3rd July 2023, being the date of his illegal termination. 

d.	The Plaintiff is also entitled to recover $3,000.00 as summarily assessed costs from the Defendant.

e.	No damages awarded.

f.	Plaintiff is entitled to recover 4% post-judgment interest on the said judgment sum of lost wages from the date of this judgment till it is settled fully and finally.

g.	All payments should be settled within 28 days from the date of this judgment.

	
A.M. Mohamed Mackie
Judge

On this 12th Day of December 2025 at the High Court of Lautoka.

SOLICITORS:
For the Plaintiff	Messrs. S. Nand Law – Barristers & Solicitors
For the Defendant 	Messrs. Legal Lines – Barristers & Solicitors