Mkhula v ADMARC (IC 240 of 20022 ) (240 of 20022) [2006] MWIRC 25 (14 March 2006);

Share
Download: 

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF MALAWI


PRINCIPAL REGISTRY


MATTER NO. IRC 240 OF 2002


BETWEEN

MKHULA……...…………...……………………………… ……………...APPLICANT


-and-

ADMARC……………….……………………………………………….RESPONDENT


CORAM: R. Zibelu Banda (Ms), Chairperson

Applicant; Present

Nchembe; for Respondent

Chinkudzu; Official Interpreter

JUDGMENT

Dismissal- Justification-Reason-Misconduct-Shortages-Warning-Procedure-Right to be heard.


Upon hearing the applicant, and upon hearing the respondent the court finds that the applicant flouted company procedure by incurring shortages which he was not able to explain. Incurring unacceptable shortages without any proper explanation has been held to constitute fair reason for termination/ dismissal, see: Mbalangwe V People’s Trading Centre [Matter Number IRC 164/2001 (unreported)], see also Chimwala V People’s Trading Centre [Matter Number IRC 259/2002 (unreported)]. The applicant had prior warning related to stork and cash management.


The applicant was given an opportunity to explain his side and defend himself. He admitted incurring the shortage. He offered to pay back but the respondent considered this an act of misconduct and dismissed him. The applicant’s terminal benefits were held by the respondent for he owed the company more money than his benefits.


Finding

The respondent complied with the law by affording the applicant the opportunity to be heard and defend himself before he was dismissed: See, section 57 (1) and (2) of the Employment Act. Therefore this action is dismissed in its entirety.


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 this 15th day of February 2007 at BLANTYRE.


Rachel Zibelu Banda

CHAIRPERSON.