Sebastian et Al v St. John's Terminal Operating Company ; Govia et Al v St. John's Terminal Operating Company

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: Industrial Court (Antigua)
• Judge: Lewis, P.
• Judgment Date: 02 February 1978
• Docket Number: No. 14 & 15 of 1977
• Date: 02 February 1978

Industrial Court

Lewis, P.; Ford, J. (Member); Caines, J. (Member)

No. 14 & 15 of 1977

Sebastian et al

and

St. John's Terminal Operating Co.

Govia et al

and

St. John's Terminal Operating Co.

Appearances:

Antigua Workers' Union (represented by D. Halstead) for the employees

The Antigua Employers' Federation (represented by C. Cumberbatch) and Time H. Kendall, Solicitor for the employers

Constitutional law - Industrial Court — Whether court validly appointed — Failure of applicants to submit documentation as required by the President of the court.

Lewis, P.

1 The two references which this court is now considering were filed by the Minister responsible for administering the provisions of the Labour Code on September 12 ^th, 1977. The first is Reference No. 14/1977, and is between Leroy Sebastian and Others — Employees, and St. John's Terminal Operating Company — Employers. The second Reference No.15/1977 and the parties to which are, Basil Govia and Others — Employees, and Antigua Public Utilities Authority — Employer.

2 The same point arises in both of these references, viz., the failure of the employees in each reference to file their memorandum as claimants as decided by the President. Because of this common question the court has directed that it would be convenient to hear arguments on this point in respect of both references at the same time.

3 The duly authorised representative of the employees has raised as preliminary objection certain questions which he says are of a constitutional nature relating to (a) the appointment of the members of the Industrial Court and (b) the validity of the legislation creating this court. He admits that both of these questions have been referred to the High Court but that so far no decision has been given. It is not part of the duty of this court to decide these constitutional questions. Mr. Kendall has submitted that they should be ignored. This court accordingly proposes to proceed on the basis that it is properly constituted until it is decided otherwise.

4 The real question which is before the court this morning concerns the failure of the employees to present their memorandum to the court in compliance with the direction of the President of the court contained in a letter to them from the Registrar of the court dated 12 ^th September, 1977.

5 Rule 6 of the Industrial Court (Procedure) RulesRules S.R.O. No.24/1976 requires each party to a reference to...