The court considered whether the defendant is in breach of the contract of employment, whether the defendant has discharged his obligation to the plaintiff and whether the plaintiff is entitled to the remedy he is praying for. The court held that that the defendant in dismissing the plaintiff was not in breach of any contract but as to the benefits the plaintiff should have got on termination of his services with the defendant. That Double R Holdings was a legal entity different from the plaintiff and the principle or the doctrine of lifting a veil does not apply to the present case. That the idea of declaring redundancy was of the company’s making and employees should not be penalized for it.