Manne v Mauritius Tuna Fishing and Canning Enterprises Ltd 1989 MR 42
1989 SCJ 80 Boolell J
29 March 1989

The plaintiff joined the employment of the defendant in June1985. He entered a case before the Industrial Court alleging that he had been dismissed without any justification on 14 April 1988. The evidence shows that on 23 March 1988 the plaintiff was placing fish on a conveyor in a cold store where there are two separate compartments, one for tuna and for what is commonly known as“La Perle Fish”. At about 1.55 p.m on the same day, all workers in the cold room took their tea break. One of the steps the plaintiff had to take before leaving for his tea was to place any fish found on the conveyor in a trough (bac). Immediately after a foreman found one "La Perle fish" in the trough and he immediately called in the supervisor, one Mr Leung Kee. The reason which prompted the foreman to act as he did was that"La Perle fish" cannot and has never been found with tuna fish. In fact the defendant company felt that the presence of the "La Perle fish" with the tuna was a move by the plaintiff to steal fish. The evidence also shows at the time the "La Perle fish" was found in the trough the plaintiff was asked to put it back in the cold room but as it was tea time he did not do so. Mr Becherel who gave evidence on behalf of the defendant company said that following an enquiry when the "La Perle fish" was found with the tuna, "it was supposed that the plaintiff had taken the 'La Perle' ". It was suggested that either he "resigns or goes to the police". In his judgment the learned Magistrate did not find any offence proved, but he came to the conclusion that the employer could legitimately suspect the plaintiff of trying to steal. The operative part of the judgment reads as follows- The evidence of attempt at larceny being so tenuous, that defendant was wrong to find that the plaintiff had attempted to steal. However,