Mohebatullah Mohazab v Dick Smith Electronics [1995] IRCA 221

CATCHWORDS INDUSTRIAL LAW - Termination of employment - Reinstatement - Payment of lost remuneration - Resignation - Reinstatement - Stay of Proceedings pending review. Industrial Relations Act 1988, s. 170CB, 170EA, 170ED, 170EE Liddell v Lembke (unreported, 15 December 1994, Court reference NI 94/200) MOHEBATULLAH MOHAZAB v DICK SMITH ELECTRONICS No. NI 327 of 1994 CORAM: McILWAINE JR PLACE: SYDNEY HEARING DATES: 19, 20, 25 JANUARY 1995 JUDGMENT DATE: 27 MARCH 1995 IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. NI 327 OF 1994 BETWEEN: MOHEBATULLAH MOHAZAB Applicant AND: DICK SMITH ELECTRONICS Respondent CORAM: McILWAINE JR PLACE: SYDNEY HEARING DATE: 19, 20, 25 JANUARY 1995 JUDGMENT DATE: 27 MARCH 1995 MINUTES OF ORDER THE COURT DECLARES 1. The termination of the employment of the applicant contravenes Division 3 of Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (the Act). AND THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The applicant be reinstated by the respondent company in the position that the applicant occupied immediately prior to the termination. 2. The respondent to reinstate the applicant on the same terms and conditions as applied to the applicant at the date of termination and that such period commence from the date of termination. 3. The period between the date of termination and the date of this decision be treated as continuous employment of Mr Mohazab by the respondent company for all purposes. 4. The respondent company to pay to the applicant the remuneration lost by the employee because of the termination between 20 May 1994 and the date of this judgment within 7 days of today. NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Industrial Relations Court Rules.

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. NI 327 OF 1994 BETWEEN: MOHEBATULLAH MOHAZAB Applicant AND: DICK SMITH ELECTRONICS Respondent CORAM: McILWAINE JR PLACE: SYDNEY HEARING DATE: 19, 20, 25 JANUARY 1995 JUDGMENT DATE: 27 MARCH 1995 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT