Decision soon in Gafoor’s dispute

JUSTICE MIRA Dean-Armorer will have to decide whether chauffeur allowances for judges of the Industrial Court are to be paid directly to the drivers or the judges.

She said she will give her decision before the end of this month, settling a dispute between Vice President of the Court, Gladys Gafoor and the Registrar, Noel Inniss. Gafoor filed for judicial review when Inniss refused to pay the allowance directly to her and insisted that her driver collect the cheques. She was represented by Russell Martineau SC leading Rikki Harnanan, instructed by Adrian Byrne. Inniss’ attorneys were Krishendeo Narinesingh and Neil Byam from the Solicitor General’s office, instructed by Grace Jankey from the Chief State Solicitor Department.

Gafoor’s argument is that the allowance is a personal entitlement to her and she should be  allowed to collect the cheques. Inniss on the other hand is saying that the  allowance is not a personal entitlement and the cheque must be made out to the  driver who must collect it. The dispute between the Registrar and the VP started after Marilyn Sammy-Wallace was appointed Registrar in November 2001. Wallace noted that driver allowance cheques were being made out to Gafoor’s husband who had died since 1995.

Gafoor explained that she had forgotten to inform the Registrar that since November 1, 2001 her new driver was Hubert Bahador. She also insisted that she was entitled to collect the cheques which had accumulated since Wallace did not hand them over to Gafoor. When Inniss took up the post as Registrar in January 2003, the controversy continued and Gafoor eventually took the matter to court. Inniss’ attorneys  relied  on a 1981 circular from the Chief Personnel Officer  indicating that a Cabinet decision was taken to the effect that a chauffeur’s allowance must only be paid if a chauffeur is hired.

It was also noted that  in spite of the 1981 circular the practice of paying the allowance directly to the judges only stopped in 1994, notwithstanding Justice Hum-phrey Stollmeyer’s ruling that the allowance forms part of the judge’s emolument, therefore an entitlement. He was at the time dealing with the case of  Lenore Harris, another judge of the IC. Gafoor’s attorneys relied on circulars from  Ministers of Finance, 1995 and 1998, which  stated that chauffeurs were employed by the judges. Her attorneys further argued that there existed an administrative arrangement for cheques to be made out to the driver, but that did not disentitle the judge from her allowance if she required it.