On 1st July 2016 at Harare, the applicant made a ruling in her official capacity as a Labour Officer. She ordered the respondent to reinstate ArtwellMadhunguyo in its employ. The applicant then applied to this court for the confirmation of her ruling. The respondent opposed the application. More
Appellant was employed by the respondent for a period of 33 years as a machine setter on a contract without limit of time. He fell ill on or about May 2022 and he could not report for duty since the 27th of May 2022. Initially he was placed on a fully paid sick leave for three months and later on half pay for another three months. However, his condition did not improve. Early December 2022, the parties discussed the state of affairs arising from the appellant’s exhaustion of his paid sick leave days. It was agreed that the company’s doctors... More
Judgment in this matter was reserved on 2 April 2013, but when the Court sat down to write the judgment, it discovered that the initial disciplinary proceedings were incomplete to the extent that, as per page 17 of the record, they only started with question five suggesting that there were prior questions which were missing. As a result the Court mandated the Registrar to ask for the complete record of the initial proceedings so that, the Court could decide whether or not the Appellant was dismissed in regular circumstances. More
At the onset of oral argument in this Court respondent raised points in limine which appellant. The points shall be dealt with ad seriatim.
That the appeal is improperly before the Court:
The point is expatiated in respondent’s opposing affidavit thus;
“4.1 I am advised that the present Appeal is improperly before the Court and violating Section 101 of the Labour Act as amended. The Appeal ought to have been filed before the Labour Officer/Designated Agent in terms of the Labour Amendment and not the Labour Court within provided statutory timelines. More
