INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF MALAWI
NO. IRC 114 OF 2002
- CORAM: R. ZIBELU
BANDA (MS.); CHAIRPERSON
J E CHILENGA;
NC KAJOMBO; EMPLOYEES
Chinyama; For the
The applicant was employed
on 1 June 2000. He was dismissed on 25 February 2002. The reason for
dismissal was redundancy. The court
heard that the applicant was on
the material day invited by a Secretary who handed him a letter of
termination. The reason for
the termination was redundancy. The
applicant was surprised as until this time he was not aware of any
redundancy process. He was
never invited to be informed about the
redundancy. He was never consulted on why his position was declared
redundant. The respondent
was not able to show court what
necessitated the redundancy. He attributed the redundancy to general
low productivity without elaborating.
He did not have any records of
the process leading to the redundancy. He admitted that the applicant
was informed of the redundancy
through the letter of termination.
An employer is entitled to
terminate services of its employees due to operational requirements
of the enterprise, see section 57(1)
Employment Act. In this case the
respondent failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the
reason for the termination of
the applicants employment was due to
redundancy. This is not a valid reason as it was not substantiated.
The process leading
to the termination was unfair.
The respondent violated the
applicants right to fair labour practice. The termination was
unfair. A date shall be set down
to assess an appropriate remedy.
- 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
this 31st day of December 2007 at BLANTYRE.