This is an application for review in terms of section 92 EE of the Labour Act, (Chapter 28:01) as read with Rule 20 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The applicant was employed by the respondent, PetroZim Line (Pvt) Ltd. The applicant was dismissed from employment and made an application for review under case number LCH/180/24, challenging his dismissal. The review was upheld, and the respondent was ordered to convene a fresh disciplinary hearing within 60 days. The respondent failed to conduct the hearing within the timeframe ordered by the Court, and the applicant approached the Cou More
The Applicant, an employee of the Respondent, PetroZim Line (Pvt) Ltd, was dismissed from employment following a disciplinary hearing on June 21, 2022. The Applicant successfully challenged the process leading to his dismissal in a review application under case reference LC/H/534/22. This court effectively set aside the initial disciplinary proceedings on grounds of procedural irregularities. The Respondent was directed to convene a hearing denovo within 60 days of the court order, pending which the Applicant was to revert to suspension with salary and benefits. On July 4, 2024, the Respondent issued a notice of a fresh disciplinary hearing scheduled for... More
At the onset of oral argument in this matter respondents raised 2 points in limine which applicant opposed. Thes points are:
1. That the application was filed prematurely:
2. That applicant does not have the right to file the application for review More
Applicant applied to this Court for the review of the determination by Respondent’s appeals committee which dismissed his appeal against the decision of the disciplinary committee. The application was made in terms of Section 92EE of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 as read with Rule 20 of the Labour Court Rules S.I. 150/17. More
The appellants worked for the respondent in Harare on fixed term contracts. The 1st appellant’s contract terminated presumably by effluxion of time. The 2nd appellant was terminated on grounds of misconduct. Both appellants then claimed they are entitled to cash in lieu of leave days not taken. The matter went for conciliation. The parties failed to settle whereupon the matter was referred to arbitration. On 25 August 2014 Arbitrator R E Nhiwatiwa issued an arbitration award. He dismissed the appellants’ claims “for lack of merit.” Thereafter the appellants appealed to this Court against the award. The respondent opposed the appeal. More
