Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Fiji

In re Fiji Bank Employees Union [1993] FJHC 71; Hbj0011d.1993s (24 August 1993)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
(AT SUVA)

JUDICIAL REVIEW NO. 11 OF 1993

IN THE MATTER of an Application by FIJI BANK EMPLOYEES UNION
a duly registered Trade Union pursuant to the Trade Unions Act (Cap.96)

AND

IN THE MATTER of the Trade Unions Act (Cap. 96) and the decision of the Registrar of Trade Unions dated the 16th day of April, 1993 purporting to declare the result of the secret ballot held at the Bank of Baroda, Suva as null and void under the Trade Unions Regulations (Amendment) Regulations 1991.

AND

IN THE MATTER of the Trade Disputes Act (Cap. 97) and the decision of the Minister for Labour and Industrial Relations dated the 16th day of April, 1993 purporting to declare the actual strike arising out of a Trade dispute between Bank of Baroda and the Fiji Bank Employees as unlawful and ordering the discontinuance of the strike with effect from 19th day of April 1993.

Mr. M. Raza: For the Applicant
Mr. G.E. Leung and Mr. W. Rigamoto: For the Respondents

Dates of Hearing: 5th, 7th, 19th May and 18th August 1993.
Date of Ruling: 24th August 1993

RULING ON APPLICATION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS

On the 19th of May 1993 I gave the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Registrar of Trade Unions dated 16th April 1993 declaring the result of a secret ballot held at all Bank of Baroda branches in Fiji on 1st and 2nd of April 1993 illegal and of the subsequent decision by the Minister for Labour and Industrial Relations dated 16th April 1993 declaring illegal a strike between members of the Applicant and the Bank of Baroda arising out of the failure of the Applicant and the Bank to reach agreement on the Applicant's 1992 Log of Claims.

I granted the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review on all grounds in its Statement under Order 53, Rule 2 of the High Court Rules except ground 3(v) and at the same time granted the Respondents leave to file an Affidavit in Reply by the 9th of June. That affidavit was by the then Acting Registrar of Trade Unions Mr. Nainendra Nand and relates only to ground 3(v) namely bias on behalf of the Acting Registrar.

On further reflection for the purposes of preparing this ruling in my view the Applicant should provide particulars of grounds 3(iii)(a), (b) and (c), (vi), (vii), (viii), (x), (xi) and (xii) and I shall require these particulars to be supplied before the substantive hearing of this matter.

To-date the Respondents have not filed any further affidavits in answer to that of the Applicant of the 20th of April 1993. On the question of Stay the Respondents rely on the remark of Lord Oliver speaking on behalf of the Privy Council in Minister of Foreign Affairs v. Vehicles & Supplies Ltd. (1991) 1 W.L.R. 550 at page 556 that "the granting of a stay can have no possible application to an executive decision which has already been made". The Respondents argue that the granting of a stay in this case will cause administrative chaos.

Whilst I accept that on the facts of Minister of Foreign Affairs v. Vehicles & Supplies Ltd. a stay of the executive decision in question would have caused much uncertainty and would have probably been most difficult to enforce on the ground that the allocation of motor-vehicles to various importers had already been decided and was in the course of being implemented by a person not a party to the proceedings, in the present case I do not consider any such difficulty arises. The Minister has declared the strike of the members of the Applicant illegal and I can see no harm in placing "on hold", as it were, the decision of the Registrar to declare null and void the results of the secret ballot in question here.

I accordingly reject the application for stay.

John E. Byrne
J U D G E

HBJ0011D.93S