This is an application for condonation for late noting of an appeal and extension of time within which to note the said appeal. The background to the matter is that applicant has been before this court on numerous occasions seeking to challenge his dismissal from employment. A record two of the condonation applications were granted thus giving the impression that this court was satisfied that there was something meaningful out of the portended appeal which could detain this court.
The latest striking off order was made by the court on account of the fact that the grounds which applicant intended... More
The applicants were employed by the respondent in different capacities. The applicants raised a grievance claiming they were being underpaid and nonpayment of shift allowances. The matter was subsequently referred to an arbitrator Honourable Chavura. The arbitral award, whose interpretation is the basis of this application was made in the following terms
“… I order that they (applicants) be paid the balance of their wages and the outstanding shift allowances, plus interest of 30% per annum. The union should assist the employer in calculating the outstanding wages and allowances …” More
[1]This is an application for review. The applicant raises the following three grounds :
‘1.The absence of jurisdiction on the part of the arbitrator or adjudicating authority concerned.
2.Gross irregularities in the disciplinary proceedings that led to applicant’s dismissal.
3.Interest in the cause , bias , malice or corruption on the part of the arbitrator or adjudicating authority concerned.’
Review proceedings are provided for in the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 ( the Act) as follows: More
Appellant appealed to this Court against his dismissal from employment by Respondent. The grounds of appeal read,
“1. No evidence was led to prove the allegations for example there were no witness (sic) to substantiate the allegations.
2. The Appellant was convicted on mere allegations.
3. The Appellant gave evidence which was not contradicted and therefore should have been acquitted. The evidence given by the Appellant shows that he had not committed any form of misconduct and therefore the finding of guilt was not justified.
4. There was no proper trial.” More
