Munthali v Nature's Gift (IRC 64 of2006)) (NULL) [2007] MWIRC 43 (23 July 2007);

Share
Download: 

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF MALAWI


PRINCIPAL REGISTRY


MATTER NO. IRC 64 OF 2006


BETWEEN


MUNTHALI……………………….……………………… ……………...APPLICANT


-and-


NATURE’S GIFT……. …………….…………………... ……………..RESPONDENT


CORAM: R. Zibelu Banda (Ms); Chairperson
Respondent; absent without excuse
Applicant; present
Msiska; Official Interpreter


RULING

Repatriation-To move employee from station of employment-Expenses for repatriation-Proof-Liquidated claims must be supported by evidence


Background

The matter came to court for pre-hearing conference. After listening to the preliminary enquiries, the Court was of the view that the claim of repatriation was founded. Although an action had been instituted in this court by the same applicant against the same employer, it was noted that in that action the issue of repatriation was not resolved as it was never brought before the court. Repatriation is a process of moving an employee whose services are terminated to his place of permanent residence or place of recruitment whichever is nearer. It was held in Kankhwangwa & others v Liquidator, Import & Export (Mw) Ltd [Civil Appeal Number 4/ 2003 (unreported)] SCA, that an employee may be repatriated to place of recruitment or home whichever is nearer.


The applicant also claimed compensation for taking care of a dog that had allegedly been shot down by the respondent. The court did not see the relevance of this claim in a labour matter. The applicant was advised to seek legal advise on the appropriate action to take.


Finding
The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant MK41 125-00 as repatriation costs from Lilongwe to Mzimba. The rest of the claims on this action are dismissed as they lack merit in labour law.

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

Made this 23rd day of July 2007 at MZUZU.


Rachel Zibelu Banda

CHAIRPERSON.