Court orders stay in pilots’ case

National

By DEMAS TIEN
THE Supreme Court has ordered an interim stay of a national court decision that dismissed a case filed by eight pilots regarding their sacking by Air Niugini Ltd.
The court granted interim relief to the pilots to maintain status quo and allow them full salaries and stopped their eviction from the airline’s property.
Chief Justice Sir Salamo Injia granted the orders yesterday following submissions made by the pilot’s lawyer and Air Niugini’s lawyer last week.
The pilots are Joseph Kumasi, Boris Ageda, Vincent Tongia, Benjamin Lopa, Norman Daniel, Elijah Yuangi, David Seken and Abel Kanego.
The court was of the view that if the interim stay order and the interim reliefs sought were not granted, the pilots would face hardship and prejudice.
The court was satisfied that there was a serious error in the judgment of the trial judge that established an arguable case in the pilots’ appeals.
Sir Salamo said it was important that preparations for the appeal be sped up so that a hearing date could be secured in the April or June (Supreme Court) sessions.
He directed that the appeal return on April 3 for directions hearing.
Air Niugini Ltd terminated the employment of the pilots on Sept 6 last year based on disciplinary grounds after they were absent from work on July 21, 2016.
They asked the national court in Waigani to judicially review Air Niugini’s decision but the court dismissed their judicial review application on Feb 7 on the basis that their employment was of a private nature and could not be reviewed judicially.
The court, presided by Justice Colin Makail, found that the pilots’ employment was not governed by statute because there was no statute-making provision for their terms and conditions of employment, including their termination.
The court heard that Kumasi, Ageda, Tongia, Lopa, and Daniel were employed under a contract of employment with Air Niugini Ltd while Yuangi, Seken and Kanego were employed as cadet pilots.
The court accepted Air Niugini’s argument that it was a company incorporated under the Company’s Act and managed by a board of directors pursuant to its Constitution.