Judgment No. 628
Decision
1. THE ORGANISATION IS ORDERED TO PAY TO THE COMPLAINANT COMPENSATION IN THE SUM OF 22,175 RUPEES.
2. THE REMAINING CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The responsible officers carried out an on-the-spot investigation and concluded that the decision not to renew the complainant's contract was correct. "There is no reason to believe that these experienced officers would not be able to assess, quite dispassionately and accurately, the work performance of the complainant or that their advice was not fair and unprejudiced."
Keywords
inquiry; contract; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; unsatisfactory service; investigation
Consideration 3
Extract:
The decision not to renew the complainant's contract suffers from no procedural defects. The organisation concedes that the complainant's case was mishandled. The chairwoman of the staff union made a strong protest against the treatment of the complainant. The organisation acknowledged that the complainant had been put to unnecessary hardship and it offered him an indemnity equal to six months salary. The complainant claims 20,000 dollars as material compensation for moral damages and grave defamation of character. "This is quite disproportionate to the damage suffered by him. [...] The ILO's offer is fair, and a sum equivalent to six months' salary and family allowance [...] is reasonable compensation."
Keywords
moral injury; amount; contract; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; material damages
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The Director-General has a duty to ensure that the organisation is efficiently run. If in seeking to preserve efficiency he exercises his discretion not to renew a contract, it must be taken, unless the contrary is proved, that he is acting in the best interests of the organisation."
Keywords
contract; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; organisation's interest
| 
