BCC 145/450

The original dispute involved an employee whose reinstatement had been confirmed by a previous edict, the terms of which had not been followed. The employee had not received wages and claimed compensation. The court of appeal stated the employee did not deserve compensation. It was warned that courts must be clear to that they had reviewed every issue involving the case. The court had examined all the issues in the case.

Background

The claimant brought a claim against a defendant stating he had been granted a loyal edict which allowed him to returned to work at the defendant's school. The grant had instructions to the defendant including that the claimant would enjoy the periodical bonus as other employees had been granted. Although he started his work, the defendant did not perform all these obligations and did not pay him any wage. Therefore, he brought this litigation for the wages and to assert his right to compensation for the loss. However, the defendant argued that he had not been paid because he had not gone through medical tests.

Decision