Court name
Industrial Relations Court
Case number
IRC Matter 100 of 2006

Nyirenda v Raiply Ltd (IRC Matter 100 of 2006) [2006] MWIRC 95 (22 July 2006);

Law report citations
Media neutral citation
[2006] MWIRC 95





IN THE
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF MALAWI




MZUZU
REGISTRY




MATTER
NO. IRC 100 OF 2006




BETWEEN




NYIRENDA……………..………………………………………………..
APPLICANT






-and-




RAIPLY MALAWI LTD…….. ………………………………………
RESPONDENT





CORAM: R. Zibelu
Banda (Ms); Chairperson



Banda; of Counsel for
the Respondent Applicant; Present



Bondo; Official
Interpreter




ORDER



  1. Terminal
    benefits-Severance allowance-Notice pay-Pension


  2. Order-Vague-Remit order
    for interpretation and clarification for purposes of quantifying
    award


  3. Jurisdiction-Labour
    officer-No jurisdiction to make orders-Jurisdiction of Labour
    Officer limited to conciliation and mediation-Order
    of Labour
    Officer invalid for lack of jurisdiction



Background


The
applicant was successful in his action for unfair dismissal against
the respondent. An order was made on 10 December 2006 by
Her Honour
Mrs. K Nthara to the effect that the applicant must be paid benefits
in form of severance allowance, notice pay and
pension. The court
also made some factual findings relating to unreasonable extension of
suspension period. The period that was
alluded to as being
unreasonable did not appear in the court’s judgment for purposes of
calculating benefits due under that finding.




The
applicant took his matter to Labour Office allegedly for advice on
calculating his dues. The labour office came up with some
liquidated
sum which somehow ended up with the sheriffs for execution. The
respondent applied for a stay of the execution of this
document.




The matter
was called today to determine the document from the labour office and
stay its execution. The matter also proceeded to
calculation of the
entitlements due to the applicant as per the court’s order of 10
December 2006. Parties were able to agree
on the severance allowance,
notice pay, leave grant and wages for days worked before suspension.
This amount was paid by the respondent.

The
parties could not agree on the construction of the court’s order in
relation to unreasonable suspension. This court therefore
remitted
the question of the unreasonable suspension period to Her Honour Mrs.
K Nthara to clarify. She is obliged to make a finding
and the
necessary order with verifiable period for purposes of calculations.




The
document prepared by labour office and acted upon as an order by the
applicant is invalid. The labour office has no jurisdiction
to make
any orders under the labour laws unless the order was by consent of
parties and signified as such by the signatures of
both parties and
that of the Labour Officer. This order for MK 77 112-00 is therefore
set aside. It is bad as it was made without
jurisdiction.




Order


The parties agreed on the
entitlements of the applicant as per court order. The remaining part
concerning unreasonable period of
suspension which is vague shall
revert back to the Judicial Officer who made it for a finding and
necessary order.




Any party
aggrieved by this decision is at liberty to appeal to the High Court
within 30 days of this judgment.




Made
this 23rd day of July 2007 at BLANTYRE.




Rachel
Zibelu Banda


CHAIRPERSON.