{"issue_text":"Whether back pay should be included in damages for unfair dismissal","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Arbitrator awarded 5 months back pay and 20 months damages separately"}
{"issue_text":"Whether respondent was contractually entitled to vehicle use benefit","issue_type":"fact","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"No written contract, only repair invoices provided as proof"}
{"issue_text":"Whether respondent was entitled to fuel allowance","issue_type":"fact","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Payslip showed transport allowance but no fuel allowance"}
{"issue_text":"Whether school fees subsidy should be paid as cash after child removed from school","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Respondent removed child after dismissal, no proof of new school fees"}
{"issue_text":"Whether respondent had accrued leave entitlements","issue_type":"fact","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Payslip showed zero leave days, but statutory entitlement under Section 14A"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The appellant appealed against an arbitrator's award that quantified damages for unfair dismissal, challenging the inclusion of back pay in damages and certain employment benefits. The respondent had been unfairly dismissed on 1 October 2013 and awarded reinstatement or damages.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases