This is an application for review.
The background is that the applicant alleges that she was employed by the 2nd respondent. The applicant’s services were terminated by the 2nd Respondent in December 2014 after the government had indicated that it was going to employ qualified ECD teachers in January of 2015. The applicant argued that she ought to have been retrenched but she was not. She argues that she was this fairly dismissed. More
Appellant appealed to this Court against her dismissal from employment by Respondent who opposed the appeal.
The grounds of appeal were three-fold as follows;
“1. The Respondent grossly erred and/or misdirected himself in his assessment of the evidence that was placed before the Disciplinary Committee. More
On the 10th of April 2019 at Harare Applicant, qua Designated Agent made a ruling. She ordered 1st Respondent (employer) to pay 2nd to 12th Respondent (employees) a total sum of $21,065-45 in respect of their retrenchment package or terminal benefits. The payments were due within thirty (30) days of the ruling. Apparently the employer did not comply. Applicant then applied to this Court in terms of section 93 (5a) of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01(hereafter called the Act) for the confirmation of her ruling. The employer supported the application. The employees opposed the application. More
The applicant made a ruling in terms of section 93 5 ( c) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] in the following terms:
“1. The claim by the claimant for payment of service pay is hereby upheld in terms of section 12 c (2) of the Labour Act.
2. The respondent should therefore pay a total of $1 574-16 to the claimant.
3. The order should be complied with within thirty days from the date of receiving it.”
Pursuant to section 93 5 (a) and (b) of the Act the applicant has approached this court for confirmation of the said... More
This is an application for rescission of the judgment that was entered in default by this court on 28 October 2015. In this judgment the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. More
