arbitral award appealburden of proofgratuity calculationNSSA contributionspension fund offset
Tags
arbitral awardappealburden of proofgratuityNSSApension fund
legislation
Statutes Cited
Labour Act
Labour Act
Labour Act
Pension and Provident Funds Act
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether the arbitrator erred in shifting the burden of proof to the employer","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Dispute over job title and employment records"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the arbitrator was required to hold an oral hearing","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Matter decided on written submissions only"}
{"issue_text":"Whether respondent was entitled to gratuity despite NSSA contributions","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"17 years service, NSSA contributions"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The appellant appealed against an arbitral award that found in favour of the respondent regarding terminal benefits, underpayment, and gratuity. The respondent had worked for 17 years and claimed he was employed as a block man rather than a butchery assistant.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases