1930 Supreme(SC) 1
Privy Council At Cyprus
Thankerton, Warrington of Clyffe , Justice Lords Blamesburgh, JJ.
Ottoman Bank -Appellant
Versus
Etienne Chakarian -Resopndent
Privy Council Appeal No. 129 of 1928
Decided On : 21-01-1930
Solicitors, Thompson, Bischoff , Coxe, Bischoff, S.O.H. Collins, A.M, Latter , J.W.C. Barry , Lawrence, R. Smith , H.P. Macmillan
An order placing an employee at grave personal risk is unlawful; refusing it is not "serious fault" justifying dismissal. A contract is not frustrated by a regional disability if the employee can serve elsewhere and the disability is not proven permanent.
Headnote:(A) Employment Regulations - Dismissal for serious fault - Lawfulness of orders - An order to remain in a location where the employee faces a real and justified risk of personal danger is not a lawful order - Refusal to obey such an order does not constitute "faute grave" (serious fault) justifying dismissal without notice or pension.
(B) Contract of Service - Impossibility of performance - Permanent disability - A contract of employment is not rendered impossible of performance by a personal disability if the employee is capable of serving in other branches of the employer's organization and the disability is not established as permanent at the time of dismissal.
Facts of the case:
An employee of a bank, who had previously been sentenced to death by political forces in a specific region, was ordered to remain in a city where he feared for his life after being questioned by a former police official. Despite requests for transfer to a branch outside the country, the employer refused. The employee left the city for safety and was subsequently dismissed for dereliction of service. The employer contended that the employee's inability to work in the country constituted a permanent disability that frustrated the contract and incapacitated the employee from performing the services contracted for.
Findings of Court:
The risk to the employee's safety was real and justified; therefore, the order to remain was not a lawful one. The employee's refusal to obey was not a "faute grave" as required for dismissal under the regulations. The employer failed to establish that at the time of dismissal the employee's disability was permanent or that the employer could not employ him in a location where the disability did not affect him.
Issues: Whether the refusal to obey an order to remain in a dangerous location constituted a "serious fault" justifying dismissal; and whether the employee's inability to work in a specific country constituted a permanent disability that rendered the contract impossible to perform.
Ratio Decidendi: An employee is not bound to obey an order that places their life at grave risk; such an order is unlawful, and disobedience does not justify dismissal for serious fault. Furthermore, a contract is not frustrated by a regional disability if the employee can perform duties in other locations and the disability is not proven to be permanent at the time of dismissal.
Result: Leading appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
employment law
-
wrongful dismissal
- serious misconduct
- lawful orders
-
frustration of contract
- impossibility of performance
-
damages
- pension calculation
-
wrongful dismissal
Lord Thankerton:-
In this action the plaintiff, who is respondent in the leading appeal, seeks to recover damages for wrongful dismissal from the defendant Bank, who are appellants in the leading appeal. The trial Judge found the appellants liable in damages, which he assessed on an alternative basis. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court of Cyprus, who affirmed the trial Judge on the question of liability, but directed the re-assessment of damages on a lower basis. Prom that judgment the leading appeal was taken by the appellants on the question of liability, and the respondent has taken a Gross-appeal on the question of damages. The respondent, who was an Armenian and a Turkish subject, became a temporary employee of the appellant Bank in 1901 at the branch office at Aidin in Turkish Asia Minor. In 1903 he entered the permanent service of the Bank, and subscribed to a book of regulations, called “Caisse de Pensions et de Retraite,” which deals with conditions of service and a contributory pension fund for the staff. He continued in their service until 27th January 1923, when he was dismissed without notice and without pension under the circumstances referred to later.
The respondent remained at the Aidin Branch until 1913, when he went to the Sokia Branch, from which he was re-transferred to Aidin in June 1919, immediately before the destruction of Aidin by the Kemalists, by whom he was imprisoned and sentenced to death. The timely arrival of the Greek forces enabled him to avoid the execution of the sentence and to escape to Smyrna. After various changes he came back to Smyrna in July 1920, and he remained there until 8th September 1922, when he applied for and obtained leave, but was asked by Mr. Simmons, the Branch Manager, to take a confidential letter to the Head Office at Consantinople.
The respondent arrived at Constantinople on 10th September 1922 delivered the letter, and was given temporary employment at the Head Office, which appears to have superseded his leave. Meantime Smyrna was destroyed by the Turkish forces. The respondent's story of his experiences at Constantinople, which substantially remains unchallenged, is as follows :
"I found Constantinople in a disturbed state. I went to the Bank and saw Mr. Ungar, the sub-Manager in the Direction Generale. I gave the confidential letter Mr. Simmons had given ma to Mr. Ungar, I also told him what Mr. Simmon a had told me confidentially. I explained to him the state of affaire in Smyrna. At this interview I asked him to allow me to leave Constantinople, because it was unsafe for me to remain. I told him I had been condemned to death at Aidin and that therefore, I could not remain. Mr. Ungar referred me to Mr. Skanzianni, le chef du Personnel. I saw him. At the office of Mr. Skanzianni, Mr. Bouzourou happened to be present, and Mr. Skanzianni called in the Chef du Bureau, Mr.Goyar. I explained everything to Mr. Skanzianni and asked permission to leave. He laughed at me. Mr. Bouzourou was then Chef du Bureau du Personnel. I was not given leave. I stayed in Constantinople for 20 days, asking him every day to transfer me to any branch outside Turkey. They would not do so. Instead of giving me leave they gave me temporary work. On Thursday evening, on coming out of the office, I came across Tewfik Bey who had been Chief of Police at Aidin at the crucial time. He was in mufti. I could not recognize him. Ha questioned me. I was much perturbed and immediately changed my hotel for fear that he should betray me at any time. On the Friday 28th September 1922 the Bank was closed. On the Saturday I went to relate the incident of meeting Tewfik Bey, to my Chief. The Chiefs came late, 9-30 or 10 a.m., so I saw two Sub-Chiefs, Mr. Berturucchi and Mr. Baache. I related to both of them the incident of meeting Tewfik Bey, explained to them the whole affair: and stated that as my life was in danger I wanted to leave at once. There was a ship leaving on the Saturday morning at 10-30