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.
Civil procedure — parties — citation — application for reinstatement of Posts and Telecommunications Corporation employee allegedly wrongfully dismissed — Postmaster-General wrongly cited as respondent — Corporation was employer and should have been cited
Employment — termination — discharge — PTC employee — governed by Labour Relations Act 1985 — therefore prior written approval from Minister for dismissal in terms of s 2 of Labour Relations (General E Conditions of Employment) (Termination of Employment) Regulations 1985 is necessary
The applicant was dismissed from his employment with the Posts and Telecommunications Corporation after he was found guilty of misconduct. He applied for an order setting aside the decision that he was guilty of misconduct and reinstating him in his previous post with the payment of salary and benefits from the date of his dismissal to the date of his reinstatement. The Postmaster-General was cited as the respondent in this application. Counsel for the respondent took the point in limine that the application should be dismissed because the Postmaster-General was wrongly cited as the respondent when the application should have been brought against the PTC. Held, that the application had to be dismissed as the application had been brought against the wrong party. The action should have been brought against the PTC which was the employer of the applicant and had the power to dismiss the applicant, and not against the Postmaster-General, who was himself an employee of the PTC.
Held, further, that had the action been brought against the correct party, the PTC, the court would have had to have ruled that the discharge of the applicant was unlawful as the necessary authority for dismissal had not been obtained from the Minister of Labour, Manpower Planning and Social Welfare in terms of s 2 of the Labour Relations (General Conditions of Employment) (Termination of Employment) Regulations 1985, the PTC being an employer covered by the Labour Relations Act 1985.
Sign in or create a free account — you get 2 full-case reads included.