This is a review and an appeal arising out of the decision of the National Employment Council Tobacco Industry Grievance and Disciplinary Committee (“GDC”) handed down on 19 July 2013. The GDC set aside the dismissal of the respondent imposed by the appellant’s Disciplinary Hearing Committee and confirmed by the Works Council. The GDC remitted the matter for another investigation and hearing. More
This is an appeal against the Arbitral Award that was handed down by Honourable Arbitrator A.J. Manase on 1st February 2013. In this award the Arbitrator ordered that Appellant should pay its employees a housing allowance calculated at 50% of the basic pay. The total figure of the housing allowance was $12 894 294 291,92. More
This is an appeal to the Supreme Court from a judgment of this Court.
The application was decided on the basis of the record. The grounds of appeal raise issues of fact. The Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] (The Act) provides in Section 92 E (1) that:
“An appeal on a question of law only shall lie to the Supreme Court from any decision of the Labour Court”
The grounds raised therefore are contrary to the provisions of The Act.
After considering the papers it is ordered that the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court be and is... More
Before me is an application for condonation of late noting of an appeal.
On 3 June 2013 the respondents obtained an arbitral award in their favour. The applicant lodged an appeal against that award on 10 June 2013 in case number LC/H.412/13. That appeal was struck off the roll on the basis that the applicant had irregularly cited respondents as Chenayi Nyaguse and “12 Ors”. Consequently the appeal was defective. That judgment was handed down on 14 March 2014. More
This matter was set down as an application for condonation of late noting of an appeal. Before me are two points in limine that were raised.
Respondents obtained an arbitral award in their favour whose operative part reads as follows;
“1. The charges against the claimants (respondents in casu) are calculated to victimize the claimants. They are illegal and must be stayed.
2. The respondents (applicant in casu) is committing unfair labour practice.
3. Each party to pay its own costs as per agreed quantum.” More
The Appellant is a statutory corporation whose principal function is to act as an agent of the State in assessing, collecting and enforcing the payment of all revenues. At the relevant time, respondent was employed as a Revenue Trainee by appellant from May 2011 until April 2012 when he was dismissed pursuant to a disciplinary hearing conducted on the 13th of April 2012. More
