{"issue_text":"Whether the respondent's claim for arrear salaries had prescribed under section 94(1) of the Labour Act","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Claims date to January 2012, brought to Labour Officer January 2015"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the arbitrator erred in finding mutual agreement to postpone resignation","issue_type":"factual","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Respondent resigned February 2014, arbitrator found postponement agreement"}
{"issue_text":"Whether salaries were owed after date of resignation","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Resignation February 2014, salaries awarded to date of award"}
{"issue_text":"Whether calculation of award amount was mathematically correct","issue_type":"factual","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Award of USD 58,628.40 at USD 1,465.71 per month"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The respondent employee claimed arrear salaries from 2012. The appellant employer alleged the claim had prescribed and that respondent had resigned in February 2014. The arbitrator found in favour of respondent, awarding substantial arrear salaries.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases