This appeal centres mainly on the issue whether the Arbitrator was correct in holding that the Labour Officer and consequently the Arbitrator had jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter.
Appellant’s case on the one hand was that the dispute between it and Respondent was a commercial one over which the Labour Officer had no jurisdiction whilst Respondent’s case on the other hand was that the dispute was a labour dispute over which the Labour Officer had jurisdiction. More
The matter was placed before me as an application for upliftment of the bar operating against the Applicant by virtue of its failure to file Heads of Argument. More
Respondent was in the employ of the appellant. Respondent was caught sleeping on duty and cautioned by appellant’s senior employee. He was caught in the act again on the same day and was hauled before a disciplinary committee which recommended his dismissal. The internal appeals authority upheld the penalty and the matter finally ended up with the arbitrator. The arbitrator was of the view that the penalty of dismissal was too harsh and substituted it with a Final Written Warning valid for twelve (12) months. Respondent was to be reinstated without loss of pay and benefits. Appellant is dissatisfied with... More
The delay in the hand down of the judgment is sincerely regretted.
The application before the court is an application for review of the decision taken by the Respondent on 2nd February, 2022 to terminate the Applicant’s contract of employment in terms of Section 12C of the Labour Act [Cap 28:01]. The application is premised on Section 92 EE(1) of the Labour Act [Cap 28:01] as read with Rule 20 of the Labour Court, Rules 2017. More
This is an appeal against the respondent’s dismissal of the appellant from its employ.
At the commencement of the hearing a point in limine was raised on behalf of the appellant. The point was that there was no company resolution authorizing one Takunda Timbe to depose to the opposing affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent. The respondent too had preliminary issues for consideration by the Court. These had to do with propriety of the grounds of appeal and the appellant’s prayer. These will be considered after the one raised on behalf of the appellant has been considered. More
