News & Publications

Case In Point

Understanding the Timeline for Misconduct Charges

 
In its latest decision, the Supreme Court of Mauritius in CIM Finance Services Ltd v. Nayantara Ramessur (2024 SCJ 453) reaffirmed a key principle regarding the timing of employer actions under the Employment Rights Act 2008.
 
The central issue revolved around the interpretation of section 38(2)(a)(iii) concerning the requirement for employers to notify employees of charges related to misconduct within ten days of becoming aware of the misconduct.
 
The Court of Appeal agreed with the principles established in earlier cases, emphasizing that the ten-day delay under section 38(2)(a)(iii) begins only when the employer has a “connaissance exacte et complète des faits reprochés”—a precise and complete understanding of the alleged facts.
 
In this case, it was deemed that such knowledge could only be established upon the completion of an internal enquiry.
 
The judgment overturned the Industrial Court’s decision, which found the employer at fault for not notifying the employee within the statutory delay. The Supreme Court concluded that the enquiry was completed on 18 April 2013, and the charges were correctly issued thereafter, hence the employer had complied with section 38(2)(a)(iii). The appeal was allowed, and the order for severance allowance was quashed.

Key Contacts

NV-09

Nilen Vencadasmy

Managing Partner