From the evidence that was adduced, it was found that ground one had been
settled in both lower courts, were it was held that the dismissal was unlawful thus
being null and void, and that the same had been dismissed. Thus, this ground had
no merit.
Concerning reinstatement, the appellant argued that a declaration that dismissal
was null and void goes with an order of reinstatement of an employee since the
status quo will have been restored. Further, with regard to remedies, the appellant
argued that he was entitled to administrative remedies and not damages for loss
of employment.
The court found that the Employment Act was intended to apply to employees on
fixed contracts who earn wages, thus it was not applicable to the appellant.
further, it was found that, considering the circumstances of the case, the
appropriate remedy was the award of damages to compensate him for loss of job
and not reinstatement.
Concerning the issue of damages, it was found that the trail judge erred in
awarding interest on damages at a court rate from the date of judgment. That the
rate awarded would have been given on special damages from the date of
interdiction till payment in full. Thus, this ground succeeded.