Notice Periods in Mauritius: What the Workers' Rights Act 2019 Actually Requires

04 August 2026 · Jenny Legal AI

The minimum notice period in Mauritius is 30 days, and it cannot be contracted below that. Here is what sections 61, 63 and 64 of the Workers' Rights Act 2019 require of an employer ending an employment agreement.

Most disputes over dismissal in Mauritius do not turn on whether the employer had a good reason. They turn on whether the employer followed the procedure. The Workers' Rights Act 2019 sets out that procedure in detail, and the consequence of getting it wrong is set out in section 70: the Court may order severance allowance at three months' remuneration for every twelve months of service.

This guide covers what the Act requires on notice. It cites the section behind each statement so you can check the text yourself.

The minimum notice period is 30 days

Section 63(1) allows either party to an employment agreement to end it by giving notice. Section 63(4) sets the floor:

Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in any agreement, the length of the notice to be given under subsection (1) shall not be less than 30 days.

The phrase "notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in any agreement" is doing real work. A contract clause setting a 7-day or 14-day notice period does not reduce the statutory minimum — the Act overrides it. A contract may give more than 30 days, and that longer period will govern.

Note this is 30 days, not one month. They are not the same and the Act says days.

Notice can be verbal, but the reason must be given

Two requirements sit close together and are often missed.

Section 63(3) provides that notice "may be verbal or written and may, subject to subsection (4), be given at any reasonable time." So a verbal notice is not automatically invalid.

Section 63(2) is the one that catches employers:

An employer shall, at the time of notifying a worker of the termination of his employment, state the reason of the termination.

The reason must be given at the time of notification — not later, not when the worker asks, and not for the first time in front of the Court. An employer who terminates without stating a reason has breached section 63(2) regardless of how good the underlying reason was.

In practice this is why written notice is the safer route even though the Act permits verbal notice. A written notice creates a record of what reason was given and when.

Payment in lieu of notice

Section 63(5) allows either party to pay instead of giving notice:

Any party may, in lieu of giving notice of termination of agreement, pay to the other party the amount of remuneration the worker would have earned had he remained in employment during the period of notice.

This runs both ways. A worker who leaves without giving 30 days' notice can be liable to the employer for the equivalent amount.

Time off to look for work

Section 63(6) requires an employer, during the notice period, to allow the worker "reasonable time off, without loss of pay, to seek further employment" — on satisfactory proof of the purpose of the request. This is an obligation on the employer, not a courtesy, though it is conditioned on the worker substantiating the request.

Migrant workers: a separate notice obligation

Where an employer intends to terminate a migrant worker's employment and repatriate him, section 63(7) adds requirements before the repatriation date:

• at least 20 working days' written notice to the supervising officer of the Ministry responsible for employment;
• payment of any unpaid remuneration; and
• confirmation that the worker has been paid all benefits due under any other enactment.

Note the notice here runs to the Ministry, not only to the worker, and it is counted in working days.

Notice is not enough where misconduct is alleged

This is the most common and most expensive mistake. Giving 30 days' notice does not make a misconduct dismissal lawful. Section 64(2)(a) imposes a separate procedure, and every step is mandatory:

1. the employer must notify the worker of the charge within 10 days of becoming aware of the alleged misconduct;
2. the worker must be given an opportunity to answer the charge, either in an oral hearing or in an oral hearing following a written answer;
3. the worker must be given at least 7 days' notice to answer the charge at that hearing;
4. the employer must be unable, in good faith, to take any other course of action; and
5. the termination must be effected not later than 7 days after the worker has answered the charge.

Requirement 4 deserves attention. Even where misconduct is proven, the employer must be able to say that no lesser sanction was available in good faith. Dismissal has to be the only reasonable option, not merely one available option.

Two related provisions:

• Section 64(3) — an employer may investigate before levelling a charge, and the 10-day clock does not start running until the investigation is complete. Investigating first is therefore not a breach; it suspends the deadline.
• Section 64(5) — before the hearing, the employer must, if the worker asks, make available for inspection the information or documents relevant to the charge which the employer intends to rely on in evidence.

Where the case is not one of misconduct or conviction, section 64(2)(c) requires termination within 7 days of the day the employer became aware of the matter.

Poor performance has its own route: section 64(6) requires an opportunity to answer and at least 7 days' notice of the hearing. It is a separate procedure from misconduct and should not be conflated with it.

Grounds on which an agreement cannot be terminated at all

Section 64(1) lists reasons that cannot ground a termination no matter what notice is given:

• race, colour, caste, national extraction, social origin, place of origin, age, pregnancy, religion, political opinion, sex, sexual orientation, gender, HIV status, impairment, marital status or family responsibilities;
• absence during maternity leave or to nurse an unweaned child, and absence during paternity leave;
• temporary absence for injury or sickness duly notified and medically certified;
• performance affected by an injury sustained in the course of work, where a Government medical practitioner certifies incomplete recovery;
• trade union membership, office, or participation in union activities;
• filing a complaint or participating in proceedings against the employer in good faith;
• exercising any right under the Act, another enactment, an agreement, a collective agreement or an award.

Section 64(1A) adds a further restriction: an agreement shall not be terminated during any month in respect of which the employer is receiving financial assistance, as defined in that subsection.

When the worker treats himself as dismissed

Termination is not only something an employer does. Section 61(2) allows a worker to claim that his agreement has been terminated by the employer where:

• the worker is ill-treated by the employer;
• the employer fails to pay the remuneration due;
• the employer fails to provide work and pay remuneration; or
• the worker is made to resign by fraud or duress, or is made to sign a letter of resignation.

A resignation obtained by pressure is therefore capable of being treated as a termination by the employer — and section 70(1)(a) makes a section 61(2) termination a basis for the Court to order severance allowance.

Absence is not automatically abandonment

Section 61(3) provides that an agreement is not broken where a worker is absent for not more than 3 consecutive working days without good and sufficient cause, for a first time.

Beyond that, section 61(4) restricts the abandonment defence. Where the matter is referred to an officer or to the Court, the employer may not argue that the worker abandoned employment unless it proves the worker was given written notice — by post with advice of delivery, or by delivery at his residence — requiring him to resume, and failed to do so within the time specified, which must be not less than 24 hours from receipt.

Treating an absent worker as having resigned, without sending that notice, forfeits the defence.

A practical sequence

For a straightforward termination that is not based on misconduct or performance:

1. Confirm the ground is not one listed in section 64(1) or caught by section 64(1A).
2. Give notice of at least 30 days, or the contractual period if longer.
3. State the reason at the time notice is given, in writing.
4. Allow reasonable paid time off to seek work on request, under section 63(6).
5. For a migrant worker being repatriated, give the Ministry 20 working days' notice.
6. Pay remuneration due on termination under section 31, and assess severance under sections 69 and 70.

Where misconduct or poor performance is the ground, the section 64(2) or 64(6) procedure runs in addition to the above, and its deadlines are short. The 10-day and 7-day limits are the ones most often missed.

Where this leaves you

The Workers' Rights Act 2019 is procedurally demanding, and its deadlines are counted in single-digit days. An employer with a strong case on the facts can still lose it by notifying a charge on day 12, or by dismissing on day 9 after the hearing.

If you are working through a specific termination, the sections to read in full are 61, 63, 64, 69 and 70 — and the amendments matter, as section 63 was amended by Act No. 11 of 2024 and section 61 by Act No. 15 of 2021.

This article is general information about Mauritian law, not legal advice. Legislation is amended and courts reinterpret it. Verify the current text of any provision and consult a qualified Mauritian legal practitioner before acting.