{"issue_text":"Whether the appellants were employees or independent contractors of the respondent","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Contract terms, level of control, economic realities, payment method, tax deductions"}
{"issue_text":"Whether there was unlawful dismissal of the appellants","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"COVID-19 stoppage, contract terms on termination, timing of supermarket letters"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the appellants were entitled to back pay for April-September 2020","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"COVID-19 impact, supervening impossibility, no work performed"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the appellants were entitled to cash in lieu of leave","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Employment status, failure to prove extent of leave entitlement"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The appellants provided roving merchandising services to respondent in supermarkets until April 2020 when they were stopped due to COVID-19. Disputes arose over whether they were employees or independent contractors, unlawful dismissal, back pay, and cash in lieu of leave. After proceedings before labour officer, Labour Court and Supreme Court, DA Mutsago determined they were employees but had not been unlawfully dismissed and were not entitled to back pay or cash in lieu of leave.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases