Judge rules for Sam Maharaj

More than 17 months after he was not re-appointed to the Industrial Court, Maharaj is to receive $13,800 in entertainment allowance. Justice Mira Dean-Armorer, presiding in the Port-of-Spain High Court, ordered the Attorney General to pay Maharaj’s costs fit for a senior and junior attorney.

However, Maharaj lost his claim for exemplary damages. Justice Dean-Armorer did not feel that Maharaj’s fundamental rights were contravened. Maharaj was represented by Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj SC, Rikki Harnanan and Darrel Allahar, while Elton Prescott appeared for the Attorney General.

Maharaj won round one in his battle against the Government. He also filed for judicial review of the decision of the Government not to re-appoint him to the Industrial Court after his term of office expired on February 16, 2004. The judgment, which is to be delivered by Justice David Myers, is pending now for one year.

By instrument dated November 17, 2000, the acting President appointed Maharaj a member of the Industrial Court. Maharaj became aware of his appointment on November 28, 2000 and assumed duties at the Industrial Court the following day.

On the same day he started the new job, the Minister of Finance, Planning and Development, issued a circular to all Permanent Secretaries, Heads of Departments etc, to the effect that the entertainment allowance of $250 per month payable to members of the Industrial Court would be discontinued.

Maharaj said he never received the allowance during his three-year term in office, but pointed out that all other members of the Industrial Court who held office prior to the issue of the notice, continued to receive the allowance.

The Registrar of the Industrial Court wrote a letter dated January 15, 2004 to Maharaj in which he pointed out that Maharaj assumed duties on November 29, 2000 and not on the date on the instrument of appointment — November 17.

The two dates were the focus of attention at the hearing. Noel Innis, who deposed an affidavit on behalf of the Attorney General, said the date on which Maharaj assumed office, was really the date of the appointment, and not the date of the signing of the instrument by the acting President.

Ramesh Maharaj, in his submissions, said his client effectively held office on the date of the instrument by which he was appointed. He submitted that the omission of the Attorney General to pay him his entertainment allowance, was in breach of the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act.

In support of his argument, Maharaj referred to the case of Bernadette Hood-Caesar vs AG, where the applicant successfully argued against the decision of the NAR Government for taking away public servants allowances in 1987.

Prescott, in his reply, submitted that the date from which a member should hold office was different from the date of his appointment and that the date of execution of the instrument was the first day from which the member may take up his functions.

He argued there was a distinction between a member holding office and a member being appointed.

In her 21-page judgment, Justice Dean-Armorer ruled that Sam Maharaj was appointed on the date on which the President signed the instrument.