Chandradev Appadoo v SBM Bank (Mauritius) Ltd (Mauritius); Chandradev Appadoo v SBM Bank (Mauritius) Ltd No 2 (Mauritius)

An appellate court reviewing an Industrial Court on a question of law must not reweigh evidence. It may interfere with a factual finding only where an identifiable legal error exists, including a critical finding unsupported by evidence, a misunderstanding or failure to consider relevant evidence, or a conclusion that cannot reasonably be explained or justified. Termination by mutual agreement requires findings about the parties, how the agreement was reached and the employee’s acceptance. Internal employer records cannot alone establish that agreement. Under the Employment Rights Act 2008, section 46(11), interest on severance allowance is discretionary, may be awarded without a claim, and may run from a later date than termination. It compensates delay, not litigation conduct, and a rate below the legal rate requires reasons.

Chandradev Appadoo v SBM Bank (Mauritius) Ltd concerned the calculation of severance allowance after Mr Appadoo’s dismissal for gross misconduct. The Industrial Court found that his continuous employment had been interrupted between 24 November and 24 December 2012, limiting the award to four years’ service, and awarded interest at 3 per cent from judgment. The Supreme Court of Mauritius reversed the finding on continuity, held that Mr Appadoo had 37 years’ continuous employment, and declined to award interest. The Bank appealed on continuous employment. Mr Appadoo cross-appealed on interest. The central issues were whether the Supreme Court had lawfully interfered with the Industrial Court’s factual findings and how the discretionary interest power under the Employment Rights Act 2008 should be exercised.

Disposition. The Bank’s appeal was dismissed. Mr Appadoo’s cross-appeal was allowed to the extent that interest was awarded on the severance allowance at 4.5 per cent per annum from the date of the Industrial Court’s judgment.

1. Appellate review. An appeal from the Industrial Court succeeds only on an error of law: Smegh (Ile Maurice) Ltée v Persad Dhamerendra [2012] UKPC 23. The appellate court cannot substitute its view of the facts merely because it might have reached a different conclusion: Pioneer Shipping Ltd v BTP Tioxide Ltd [1982] AC 724. An identifiable error includes a critical finding with no evidential basis, a demonstrable misunderstanding of relevant evidence, or failure to consider relevant evidence. Even where the correct test has been followed, intervention is justified only where no reasonable tribunal could have reached the conclusion or the decision cannot reasonably be explained or justified: Kerzner International Mauritius Holdings Ltd v Assessment Review Committee [2021] UKPC 18; Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41. The wording used in Edoo MBT v The State [2015] SCJ 9 had to be understood as expressing that established perversity test, not a lower threshold.
2. Continuous employment. Whether employment was terminated is a legal conclusion dependent on necessary factual findings. For mutual termination, the evidence should identify the parties, how the agreement was made, and whether and when the employee accepted it. The Bank had neither pleaded nor proved such an agreement, and it had not put that case to Mr Appadoo. Internal documents, including the exit checklist, showed at most an internal belief or decision. They did not establish communication with or agreement by Mr Appadoo. The Industrial Court’s conclusion that the employment had been severed on 24 November 2012 had no evidential foundation and could not reasonably be justified. The Supreme Court was therefore entitled to reverse it. Under section 2 of the Employment Rights Act 2008, Mr Appadoo’s employment was continuous for 37 years.
3. Interest. Section 46(11) of the Employment Rights Act 2008 displaces the inherent jurisdiction to award interest and article 1153 of the Mauritian Civil Code. The power is discretionary, may be exercised without a claim, and the 12 per cent rate is a maximum. Interest may run from a later date than termination, including judgment where entitlement was reasonably disputed. It compensates for delay in paying severance and should not penalise litigation conduct. Reasons need not be elaborate, but must explain a refusal or unusual rate. A rate below the 4.5 per cent legal rate required justification. Neither lower court supplied a sufficient basis, so the Board exercised the discretion afresh.

• Privy Council: In [2026] UKPC 12, the Bank’s appeal was dismissed and Mr Appadoo’s cross-appeal was allowed in part. Interest was awarded at 4.5 per cent from the Industrial Court’s judgment.
• Supreme Court of Mauritius: On 11 October 2024, Mr Appadoo’s appeal was allowed in part. The finding of a break in continuous employment was reversed and no interest was awarded.
• Industrial Court of Mauritius: On 15 May 2023, the court found the dismissal unlawful for statutory procedural reasons, treated the employment as interrupted for severance purposes, and awarded interest at 3 per cent from judgment.