instead force out less privileged public officers like himself. As far as he was concerned those were also employees in the government department. It is worth noting that there is no hard and fast rule on the definitions of an employee, or employer and department. In Halsbury’s Laws of England 4 th edition 1987 – 2000 Reissue Vol. 16 the term ‘employee’ at common law is defined as follows: - “ ‘Employee’ means an individual who has entered into or works under, or where the employment has ceased, worked under, a contract of employment, employment in relation to a worker, means employment under contract and ‘contract of employment’ means a contract of service or apprenticeship, where express or implied, and, if its express, where it is oral or in writing” Whether a person is or is not an employee it is a question of fact which in proceedings under the Employment Rights Act 1996 is essentially a matter for the Employment Tribunal.” Regarding the meaning of the term “department”, Blacks Law Dictionary defines “’Department’ as one of the major administrative divisions of the executive branch of the government usually headed by an officer of the cabinet rank, for example department of the State. Generally a branch or division of Governmental administration.”
12 10 20 30 As can be deduced from the aforesaid observations, clearly, the categories of persons exempted under Article 257 (2) (b) of the Constitution who include Ministers, Ministers of State and some other political leaders elected are not employees of the Government or persons envisaged and affected by Article 80 (4) that is why it is not applicable to them. On issue No. 2, I have a few comments to make on the contention by counsel for the petitioner that Article 80 (4) is inconsistent and contravenes Articles 1 (4), 21 (1) and 38 (1) . As it was rightly submitted by counsel for the respondent no evidence was adduced to prove that the amendment had that effect, or to support the suggestion that the intention of the amendment was to lock out potential political competitors from the playing field and to deny them participation. The fact that a particular law is not applicable to some category of persons but to another, per se, is not evidence of discrimination. It does not mean that Parliament had legislated unequally in the public arena. Equal treatment does not necessarily have to be identical, the issue is fair play. The purpose and persons for which or whom it is enacted must be born in mind. Different categories of public officers may have different roles, or responsibilities. They may require different facilities. Clearly, that explains the rationale behind Articles 175 and 257 2 (b) of the Constitution, which exempts the ministers and some other political leaders. If, for example, you were to apply Article 80 (4) to the top political leaders in the government you might cause a crisis in the country.
13 10 20 30 The reports of the debates in the Hansard of July and August 2005 on the Bill on the amendment reveal that Parliament was well intended when it enacted it. It intended to level the playing field and guard against abuse of office. A good example is, public officers, using government resources, vehicles during their campaigns. The Hansard shows that, the enactment was
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 18 pages?
- Spring '19
- Parliament, President of the United States, Member of Parliament, General election