This is an appeal against the decision of the arbitrator where he ruled that appellant had resigned from her employment with respondent hence was not entitled to payment of notice pay or retrenchment package.
The background to the matter is that appellant who was in the respondent’s employ wrote on 4 April 2014 to respondent resigning from her job. She however wrote another letter on 7 April 2014 cancelling her resignation. The respondent accepted her resignation and paid her what was due to her. She was irked by the fact that respondent did not consider the withdrawal of the first... More
Appellant worked for Respondent as a Security Guard. She was charged with misconduct (gross incompetence or inefficiency). A hearing was held. The disciplinary authority found her guilty and recommended her dismissal. Appellant appealed. The Mine Manager dismissed the appeal. Appellant then appealed to this Court in terms of Section 92 D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01. Respondent opposed the appeal. More
On 28 January 2025 this court handed down the order which read as follows “Application for review being without merit it be and is hereby dismissed with costs on the ordinary scale. The court indicated to the parties that reasons for the order could be availed to them on request. A request for the dame has been made by the applicant. More
This is a judgment on a preliminary point raised on behalf of the applicant in an application for review.
The facts are common cause. They are as follows. The applicant filed the application for review and duly served the respondent. The respondent was supposed to have filed the notice of opposition within ten (10) days of receipt of the application, that is to say, by the 31st of March 2025. It did not do so . Instead it filed the notice on the 4th of April 2025. This was obviously out of time. There was no application for condonation for... More
This is a judgment on a preliminary point raised on behalf of the applicant in an application
for review.
The facts are common cause. They are as follows. The applicant filed the application for
review and duly served the respondent. The respondent was supposed to have filed the notice
of opposition within ten (10) days of receipt of the application, that is to say, by the 31st of
March 2025. It did not do so . Instead it filed the notice on the 4th of April 2025. This was
obviously out of time. There was no application for condonat More
