Chisulo v Dwangwa Sugar Corporation (IRC 101 of 2006 ) (101 of 2006) [2007] MWIRC 47 (24 July 2007);

Share
Download: 

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF MALAWI


MZUZU REGISTRY


MATTER NO. IRC 101 OF 2006


BETWEEN

CHISULO………….………..….………………………………………… APPLICANT


AND


DWANGWA SUGAR CORPORATION………….…………………..RESPONDENT



CORAM: R. Zibelu Banda (Ms); Chairperson

Applicant; present

Respondent; Kamsese Human Resources Manager

Bondo; Official Interpreter


RULING

  1. Employment-Contract of employment-Terms and Conditions-Existence or non existence of any term and condition of employment must be proved by one who alleges

  2. Pension-Term of contract-Employee to show that he was on pension scheme


The Law

It is trite law that parties to a contract are bound by the express or implied terms of the contract unless it can be shown otherwise, see Salimu V Bestobell (Mw) Ltd [Matter Number IRC 25/2005 (unreported)] and Gomiwa and another V Malawi revenue Authority [Matter Number IRC 329/2005 (unreported)].


In this case the applicant alleged that he was entitled to pension benefits after the termination of his contract. His termination was due to reaching retirement age of 60. He concluded from this that he was automatically entitled to receive pension benefits. The respondent however showed that the applicant was not entitled to pension benefits because he was never on pension scheme. In other words the applicant’s contract of employment did not provide for pension. The respondent showed that the applicant was paid severance allowance for his service.


The applicant was asked to produce any document that could prove that he was on pension. He was not able to show any. Indeed the documents that were with the applicant including his advice for retirement did not contain any clause on pension but severance allowance.




Finding

Since the applicant could not prove on a balance of probabilities that he was entitled to pension under his contract of employment, and since the only reason the applicant took out this action was that he was under a mistaken belief that retirement meant pension, the court finds no merit in the action and it is accordingly dismissed.


Any party aggrieved by this decision is at liberty to appeal to the High Court within 30 days of this date. Appeal lies only on matters of law or jurisdiction; section 65 (2) Labour Relations Act 1996.


Made this 24th day of July 2007 at MZUZU.



Rachel Zibelu Banda

CHAIRPERSON.





Frame1