Brenda Garudzo v Tsungi R Sabawu & Genham Investments (Pvt) Limited t/a T & C

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/537/2016
HARARE, 17 JUNE 2016 &
CASE NO LC/H/LRA/16/16/2016
9 SEPTEMBER 2016
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	         JUDGMENT NO LC/H/537/2016

HARARE, 17 JUNE 2016 &				 CASE NO LC/H/LRA/16/2016

9 SEPTEMBER 2016

In the matter between

BRENDA GARUDZO						APPLICANT

And

TSUNGI R SABAWU						1ST RESPONDENT

And

GENHAM INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD				2ND RESPONDENT

t/a T & C

Before the Honourable Makamure & Muzofa JJ

The Applicant in Person

No Appearance for the 1st Respondent

For the 2nd Respondent   Ms Zigomo (Legal Practitioner)

MUZOFA J:

This is an application for confirmation of a ruling/order made by the applicant in terms of section 93 (5) (5a) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] “the Act”.

The applicant submitted that she heard a matter between the first and second respondents. After considering the matter she made a ruling that the first respondent was unlawfully dismissed. The following order was made.

“The respondent (the second respondent herein) is ordered to pay complainant as follows:

CILL 22.5 days				        $800-00

Salaries November 2014 to June 2015	    8 x 800-00

Total						          $7 200

The total amount of seven thousand two hundred dollars to be paid within thirty days of receipt of this ruling”.

The applicant approached the court for confirming of the said order.

Ms Zigomo for the second respondent opposed the application. It was submitted that the first respondent’s contract was lawfully terminated on 6 March 2015 and that she was not owed any salary arrears. The first respondent was required to deduct her salary from the $5000-00 given to her for another business venture which she converted to her own use.

A perusal of the record and the evidence placed before the applicant reveal the following which was not disputed by the second respondent:

That the first respondent was employed by the second respondent on a fixed term contract from 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015.

That she was to receive a salary and benefits of $800-00.

The second respondent submitted that the first respondent was dismissed after a disciplinary hearing. The applicant correctly found that the purported disciplinary proceedings were null and void. The second respondent failed to show that it charged and dismissed the first respondent in terms of a Code of Conduct in terms of section 12 B (2) of the Act which provides:

“An employee is unfairly dismissed—

If, subject to subsection (3), the employer fails to show that he dismissed the employee in terms of an employment code; or

In the absence of an employment code, the employer shall comply with the code made in terms of section 101 (a)”.

The first respondent would therefore be entitled to payment for the unexpired period of the contract.

In respect of the leave days the court noted that the first respondent had not served one year to be entitled for payment of leave days in terms of section 14 A (2). She is not entitled to such payment.

To that extent the court will confirm the ruling with amendments. The following order is made:

The second respondent is ordered to pay the claimant as follows:

Salaries November 2014 to June 2015

8 x $800-00

$6 400-00

The second respondent to pay cost of suit.

MAKAMURE J:	…………………. I agree.

MUZOFA J: …………………………..

Zigomo Legal Practitioners, respondent’s legal practitioners