The applicant was employed as a meter reader stationed at Wyne Street, Harare. He was charged and convicted of corruption as well as disorderly or objectionable behaviour. He was dismissed from employment and noted an appeal to the Appeals Committee. The appeal was dismissed and he appealed to this court. On 18 March 2016 this court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. On 23 March 2016 the present application was filed.
An application of this nature is governed by section 92 F of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] as well as Rule 36 of S I 59/2006. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the respondent’s Appeals Committee to confirm conviction and the penalty of dismissal of Appellant.
Appellant was employed as a meter reader stationed at Wyne Street, Harare. He was charged and convicted of corruption in terms of section 7 (1) (K) (ii) of the NEC for the Energy Industry code As well as disorderly or objectionable behaviour in terms of section 7 (1) (e) (viii) of the same code. He was dismissed from employment as a result. Aggrieved, appellant noted an appeal to the Appeals Committee. More
This is an application for stay of execution of an arbitral award handed down by Honourable N.K. Nhimba on 14 August 2013. The award nullified the short time work implemented by the applicant from 1 September 2011 to May 2013. The award also ordered payment of amounts owed to the respondents as a result of reduced salaries paid during implementation of short time work. More
This is an application for condonation of late noting of appeal. Applicant was employed as a Dump Truck Operator by respondent. He was dismissed from employment on 24 March 2014 after having been found guilty of stealing diesel and selling it to a third party. On 26 March 2014 he appealed to the Disciplinary and Grievance Committee. On 2 April 2014 the Disciplinary and Grievance Committee confirmed the dismissal and advised the applicant of his appeal rights to this court. In terms of Rule 15 of S.I. 59/2006 applicant had twenty-one days within which to appeal to this Court. The... More
Appellant was employed as a teacher by the Respondent. Following allegations of misconduct, he was brought before a Disciplinary Committee which found him guilty and recommended his dismissal. Appellant is dissatisfied with the decision and has approached this Court for relief. More
