The background of this matter is that the respondents were permanent employees of Chinhoyi University & Technology farm. Currently they are employed by the joint venture of Zim-China Wan Agriculture (Pvt) Ltd. It is alleged that the respondents were advised by Mr Rashidi the Human Resources Manager to join the new venture before it was too late. The respondents expected the appellant to pay them a retrenchment package. The appellant on the other hand expected the respondents to give notice of their termination of employment. The matter was referred for conciliation but parties failed to reach a settlement and the... More
This is an appeal against an arbitral quantification award.
Respondent was dismissed by Appellant from the post of Permanent Lecturer in November 2009 following disciplinary hearings. An arbitral award thereafter ordered his reinstatement on the 26th August 2011. Damages in lieu of reinstatement was the alternative order. More
This is an application for interim relief in terms of Section 92 E of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01].
Applicant is the former employerof the First to Ninth respondents. Arbitrator F Mugabe handed down an award in favour of the respondents on the 5 November 2013 wherein he ordered their reinstatement without loss of salary and benefits with effect from 3 June 2013 or damages in lieu of reinstatement. The order included reinstatement of each respondent’s accrued leave days as at 3 June 2013. More
1. This is an application for reinstatement of a case that was deemed to be abandoned for failure to file heads of argument in time. The deeming provision is Rule 46 of the Labour Court Rules S.I.57 of 2017. The application is opposed. The reason for failure to file heads of argument was that the legal practitioner was in South Africa for treatment after an accident. More
This is an appeal from the arbitral award of Honourable Nhongo. The facts are that appellant and respondent were embroiled in a labour dispute over the non-remittal of union dues to the respondent. The matter went before the Designated Agent of the respective Employment Council. The matter was later referred to the arbitrator who found in favour of the respondent. The appellant is dissatisfied with this ruling and has approached this court for relief. More
