The first respondent was employed by the applicant as a Finance Director from the 1st of October 2008. He was later promoted to the position of Managing Director effective the 1st of March 2017. He was appointed the Group Finance Director on the 6th of October 2023 on the condition that he would only attend to assignments pertaining to Pulse Pharmaceuticals (Pvt) Ltd. Sometime in October 2023, a dispute arose between the parties, particularly in that the first respondent had set up a rival company, 5950 (Private) Limited, in the same business as that of the applicant. It was alleged... More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award which declared the dismissal of respondent unfair and set it aside whilst ordering reinstatement or alternatively damages in lieu of reinstatement. More
The four respondents are former employees of the appellant company. Each one of them was dismissed. Upon reference of the matter to arbitration, the Learned Arbitrator found that they had been unfairly dismissed and ordered their respective reinstatements with alternative orders for payment of quantified amounts of damages. Aggrieved by the arbitrator’s decision the appellant appealed to this Court on the following grounds with respect to each of the respondents. More
The twenty three Respondents were employed by the Appellant in different capacities. In 2002 the respondents were dismissed from employment by the Appellant. There are no documents filed of record showing what the charges were but they were subsequently relieved of their duties. Respondents immediately filed a complaint against Queen Elizabeth School for an unfair labour practice with a labour officer. The matter was subsequently referred for arbitration. As indicated the record of the Arbitration process was not filed of record. The Arbitrator noted that Queen Elizabeth School had raised a defence that it was not the Respondent’s employer but... More
On 24 April 2013 I dismissed Applicants’ application. Applicants requests reasons for such dismissal. These are they;
Applicants made an application to this court in terms of section 89(2) (b),(c) (d) of the Labour Act as read with Rule 14(1) (b) this court’s rules. Applicants alleged that a Labour Officer failed for some reason to issue a Certificate of No Settlement, in relation to the dispute in terms of Section 93(3) of the Act after the expiry of 30 days. The initial day of conciliation was 21 November 2012. 30 days there from was 9 January 2013. On 14 December... More
