Vasudevan Pillai v City Council of Singapore
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 23 April 1965 |
| Date | 23 April 1965 |
| Docket Number | Privy Council Appeal No 35 of 1965 |
| Court | Privy Council |
[1968] SGPC 3
Privy Council
Viscount Dilhorne
,
Lord Hodson
and
Lord Upjohn
Privy Council Appeal No 35 of 1965
Le Quesne QC and Langdon-Davies (Collyer-Briston & Co) for the appellants
Gordon Slynn and J Grimberg (Linklaters & Paines) for the respondent.
Annamunthodo Walter v Oilfields Workers' Trade Union [1961] AC 945 (refd)
Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40 (folld)
Municipal Ordinance (Cap 133, 1936Rev Ed)ss 17, 383
Administrative Law–Dismissal from employment–Natural justice–Holding of inquiry–Whether employees could rely on rules formulated by employer for inquiry to be conducted in accordance with rules of natural justice before dismissal–Whether breach of rules of natural justice curable on appeal
The appellants were daily-rated unskilled employees of the respondent (“the council”). They were asked to perform certain cleaning tasks but they refused on the basis that the work fell outside the scope of their employment. An inquiry into the incident was conducted. At the inquiry, the appellants' head of department had submitted written answers to the deputy president but these were not disclosed to the appellants. Following the inquiry, the appellants were dismissed without due notice.
The appellants relied on some of the rules formulated by the council with regard to the recruitment, engagement and discipline of their employees (“the rules”) to support their case that they were entitled to an inquiry, conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice, before being dismissed for misconduct. The trial judge dismissed the application and the appellants appealed to the Federal Court which dismissed their appeal (see [1965] 2 MLJ 51). The appellants appealed to the Privy Council.
Held, dismissing the appeal:
(1) On the evidence, the appellants failed to establish a ground upon which they could rely on the rules to support their case that the principles of natural justice applied before they could be validly dismissed: at [15].
(2) Even if the appellants could rely on the rules as part of their contracts of employment, the employees were not entitled to receive notice of the inquiry to be present at it. The principles of natural justice would only start to apply if the president or deputy president reached the conclusion that the circumstances warranted a decision to dismiss, and the decision was conveyed to the employee under the rules: at [16], [18] and [20].
(3) Even assuming that the principles of natural justice applied before the appellants were dismissed, there was a defect in the council's procedure. However, the appellants had appealed and the hearing before the subcommittee of the establishments committee was in the nature of a rehearing and evidence had been called de novo. No attack on the propriety of those proceedings was made and the defect at the earlier stage was cured by the later proceedings: at [21], [22] and [24].
(delivering the judgment of the Board):
1 This is an appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Malaysia delivered on 22 February 1965 dismissing the appellants' appeal from the judgment of Tan Ah Tah J given on 22 November 1963 in the High Court in Singapore dismissing the appellants' claim for wrongful dismissal from their employment with the respondent council.
Background
2 The appellants as to the first from 1952 and as to the second from 1956 were in the employment of the respondent council as daily-rated unskilled labourers employed in sweeping out drains and such like duties in connection with the respondent council's Pasir Panjang Power Station.
3 On 23 May 1957 the appellants were ordered by a serang one Ishak on behalf of the respondent council to clean certain air heaters and ducts used in connection with the boilers in the power station. They refused to do so claiming that this work fell outside the scope of their employment and they were not obliged to perform it; they said it should be done by boiler erectors and cleaners paid at a higher rate. For this refusal to work they were dismissed without due notice on 27 May 1957.
4 By writ issued on 4 December 1957 the appellants brought this action and by their statement of claim alleged that the respondent council were not entitled to compel them to perform the work they were ordered to do, that therefore the respondent council were not entitled to determine their employment which was alleged to be of a permanent nature. They claimed that they remained in the employment of the respondent council and [were] entitled to work and wages or alternatively they were entitled to damages for wrongful dismissal. During the trial Tan Ah Tah J inspected the power station and examined the nature of the work which the appellants were ordered to do; he reached the conclusion that no skill was required for the cleaning of the air heaters and ducts and that it was work well within the capabilities of the ordinary labourer and indeed work...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arokiasamy Joseph Clement Louis v Singapore Airlines Ltd
...not apply in cases of employment contracts. This was applied by the Privy [Council] in Vasudevan Pillai v The City Council of Singapore [1968] 2 MLJ 16 and also followed by our Court of Appeal in Lim Tow Peng v Singapore Bus Services [1975–1977] SLR 180. Of particular relevance was Choor Si......
-
Lim Tow Peng and Another v Singapore Bus Services Ltd
... ... Lord Morris, delivering the judgment of the Privy Council in Francis v Municipal Councillors of Kuala Lumpur [1962] MLJ 407 , ... also untenable because as pointed out by the Privy Council in Vasudevan Pillai v City Council of Singapore [1968] 2 MLJ 16 at p 20, `the ... ...
-
Lai Swee Lin Linda v Attorney-General
...no application on the dismissal of an employee in an employee-employer relationship; Vasudevan Pillai v The City Council of Singapore [1968] 2 MLJ 1621 followed in Arokiasamy Joseph Clement Louis v Singapore Airlines Ltd [2004] 2 SLR(R) 233. For the above reasons, I find that the plaintiff’......
-
Joseph Clement Louis Arokiasamy v Singapore Airlines Ltd
...law enunciated by the Privy Council in Ridge v Baldwin And Others [1964] AC 40, Vasudevan Pillai & Anor v The City Council of Singapore [1968] 2 MLJ 16, Lim Tow Peng & Anor v Singapore Bus Services Ltd [1976] 1 MLJ 254, she observed at para 15 of her 15. On the authority of the above-mentio......
-
DEALING WITH EMPLOYEE CRIMES
...235, 2006 Rev Ed) s 40(2), respectively. 21 However, see para 22 of this article. 22 Vasudevan Pillai v The City Council of Singapore [1968] 2 MLJ 16 at 20; Lim Tow Peng v Singapore Bus Services Ltd[1975—1977] 1 SLR 180; Arokiasamy Joseph Clement Louis v Singapore Airlines Ltd[2004] 2 SLR 2......
-
STATUTORY REPUDIATION, NATURAL JUSTICE AND SECTION 13(2) OF THE EMPLOYMENT ACT
...as on appeal to the Court of Appeal [2000] 2 SLR 303. 10 Cap 322, R 5, 1997 Rev Ed. 11 The Latin maxim for “hear the other side”. 12 [1968] 2 MLJ 16. 13 See [13] of the district judge’s judgment ([2002] SGDC 74); see also [1968] 2 MLJ 16 at 20. The district judge at [8] found that the PPM w......