IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF MALAWI
MATTER NO. IRC 72 OF 2004
KENIAS AND OTHERS ...APPLICANTS
SUGAR CORPORATION OF MALAWI (SUCOMA) .................... ..... ..RESPONDENT
CORAM: R. Zibelu Banda, Chairperson
Nkuna; of Counsel for Respondent
Gowa; Official Interpreter
Terminal benefits-Notice pay- Severance pay, Leave grant-Wages for work done-Payment of-Burden of proof-Applicant to prove entitlement-Applicant to prove that he did not receive due to conduct of respondent.
Upon hearing the applicants and the respondent and Counsel for the respondent the court finds that the applicant failed to show on a balance of probabilities that they were not paid their notice pay, wages for work done and leave grant. The applicants also failed on the claim for severance allowance because according to the prevailing laws, section 35 (6) (b) of the Employment Act 2000 in particular, a person fairly dismissed for misconduct is not entitled to severance allowance. The applicants had their services terminated due to misconduct relating to wrongful handling of company property that led to loss of such property (Clause 3.25 respondents Disciplinary Code). Therefore this whole action is dismissed is its entirety.
The court finds that the applicants were invited to collect their notice pay, wages for work performed and leave grant but they chose not to receive the money. Instead the applicants decided to bring an action in court for the same money they chose not to receive. This is abuse of court process and the court does not take kindly to such conduct which is tantamount to waste of courts resources and other partys resources. The applicants should find their own means of collecting their dues from the respondent.
Any party aggrieved by this decision has the right of appeal to the High Court within 30 days of this decision. Appeal lies only on matters of law and jurisdiction and not facts: Section 65 (2) of the Labour Relations Act.
Pronounced in Open Court this 8th day of March 2006 at CHIKWAWA.
R Zibelu Banda (Ms.)