Appellant appealed to this Court against his dismissal from employment by Respondents. The appeal was made in terms of Section 51(1) of the Public Service Regulations S.I. 1 of 2000. Respondents opposed the appeal. More
Applicant applied to this Court for the review of his dismissal from employment by Respondent. The application was made in terms of sections 92 EE and 89(1) of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01. Respondent opposed the application. More
Appellant (employee) appealed to this Court against his dismissal from employment by respondent (employer). The appeal was made in terms of Section 92D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 hereafter called the Act. The employer opposed the appeal. More
The appellant was employed by the respondent as a processing officer and was stationed at Parirenyatwa Hospital Sub-office.
The appellant was charged with misconduct in terms of Section 44 (2) (a) as read with paragraph 3 of the 1st schedule of the Public Service Regulations SI 1 of 2000; failure to perform any work or duty properly assigned, a failure to obey a lawful instructions, including circulars, instructions or standing orders issued by the commission, the treasury or the accounting officer, the specific allegations were that she had improperly completed a notice of Birth of a child (BDI) forms in... More
[1] This is an appeal against the decision by an arbitrator.
[2] The appellant appealed on the grounds that: the arbitrator grossly erred at law and in fact as the dispute had prescribed and therefore lacked jurisdiction ; the arbitrator relied on the evidence of an audit report that was not placed before them; the appellant in her capacity as Office Manager /Administrator of the respondent was reposed with wider and more robust responsibilities which allowed her to conclude agreements as she did; the respondent failed to prove that the appellant had no lawful authority to sign the vehicle disposal... More
