The appellant is a teacher who at the time of dispute was based at Diggleford Primary School. Following allegations of misconduct that he solicited for a bribe and conducted extra lessons he was charged for misconduct. He was found liable on the second charge that he conducted extra lessons and not liable on the first charge. A penalty of $200, a transfer to Mudzi District and a reprimand was imposed.
The appellant appealed against the penalty.
According to the appellant the penalty was excessive considering the gravity of the offence and the circumstance it was committed. More
The brief facts of the matter are that the Applicant was employed by the Respondent as a Finance Manager. The Applicant was eventually charged with serious misconduct in terms of section 4 (a) of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations SI 15 of 2006. It was alleged that he committed various acts of conduct or omission inconsistent with the fulfilment of the express or implied conditions of his employment. A disciplinary hearing was conducted, he was found guilty and dismissed from employment. The charges are as follows: More
This is an application for confirmation of a draft ruling. The application is made in terms of section 93 (5a) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] ( “The Act” ).
History
When the matter initially came before the Labour Court, the 2nd respondent raised some constitutional issues and the matter was referred to the constitutional court, the constitutional Court struck the matter off its Roll.
The matter was then set down again before the Labour Court for the court to deal with the merits of the application. More
This court granted an application for late noting of appeal in favour of the respondent. The applicant is dissatisfied with the decision of the court in this respect. The applicant intends to approach the Supreme Court for relief. This is therefore an application in terms of section 92 F (I) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. More
After hearing submissions from Respondent’s Counsel, I dismissed the application for review with costs and indicated that my reasons will follow.
These are they.
The application proceeded in terms of Rule 19(3) (b) of this Court’s Rules 59/2006 in that Applicant having failed to file its heads of argument as required in terms of Rule 19 was barred. More
