Search by party name, citation, or a phrase from the judgment and move straight to the right volume.
Access noteResults only include content available on your current tier. If you do not have full case access, results from restricted case content will not appear.
Sign in to continue browsing Zimbabwe Law Reports.
Search by party name, citation, or a phrase from the judgment and move straight to the right volume.
Access noteResults only include content available on your current tier. If you do not have full case access, results from restricted case content will not appear.
Sign in to continue browsing Zimbabwe Law Reports.
Employment — Labour Relations (General Conditions of Employment) (Termination of Employment) Regulations 1985 — s 3 — suspension pending termination of contract of employment — application for termination of employment sent to wrong official — whether legislation complied with — application to be made "forthwith" — meaning of.
The applicant was suspended from her employment with the respondent. On the same day, the respondent wrote a letter to a named official at the Ministry of Labour, applying for an order terminating the applicant's contract of employment. Section 3 of the Labour Relations (General Conditions of Employment) (Termination of Employment) Regulations required that following suspension such an application should be made "forthwith" to a labour relations officer. The official to whom the respondent wrote was not a labour relations officer, but a regional hearing officer.
Some five months after the date of suspension, a labour relations officer referred the matter to the Labour Relations Board, but there was no indication of how that officer became seized of the matter.
The applicant applied for reinstatement in her employment. It was argued that the Regulations had not been complied with, in that the application was deliberately made to the wrong official and was not made "forthwith", and that the suspension was accordingly a nullity.
Held, that for the suspension to be valid, there must be compliance with the Regulations. The enquiry is not so much whether there has been "substantial" compliance with the Regulations, as argued by the respondent, but rather whether there had been compliance. Here, the prescribed procedure had not been followed. The application was made to the wrong officer, a regional hearing officer and a labour relations officer having entirely different functions under the legislation. Further, the application was not made "forthwith". The suspension was therefore unlawful and the applicant was entitled to reinstatement. *
Sign in or create a free account — you get 2 full-case reads included.