Crispac Rodgers Chisasa v Aviation Ground Services

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/214/2014
HARARE, 01 & 11 APRIL 2014
CASE NO.
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	                 JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/214/2014

HARARE, 01 & 11  APRIL 2014		           	        	      CASE NO. LC/H/667/13

In the matter between:-

CRISPAC RODGERS CHISASA					Appellant

And

AVIATION GROUND SERVICES				Respondent

Before The Honourable F.C. Maxwell, Judge

Appellant		In person

Respondent	In default

MAXWELL J:

Appellant who was employed by Respondent was dismissed on 2 September 2013 after a disciplinary hearing.  The letter of dismissal advised him that if he was aggrieved by the decision of the disciplinary Committee, he may appeal in writing to the Appeals Committee through the Human Resources Office within three working days of receipt of the determination.

Disregarding the advice in the letter of dismissal, Appellant appealed to this Court on 4 September 2013.  Section 13.8 of the Aviation Ground Services Code of Conduct provides as follows;

“When the internal procedures have been exhausted, any party which is still aggrieved may refer the dispute to the Labour Court in terms of Section 92D of the Act or if thirty (30) working days have lapsed without the matter being addressed, the employee may refer the matter to a labour officer in terms of section 101 the Act (sic) for redress.”

Appellant was of the view that he has a right to approach this Court in terms of Section 92D of the Labour Act [Chapter 28: 01] even though he did not exhaust internal remedies.  Appellant as signatory to the Respondent’s Code of Conduct is very familiar with its provisions, and has prematurely approached this court.  As expressed by NDOU J in the case of Christine Odson v Mind Makuvire and Others HB 88/04.

“It is trite in such labour matters, a litigant should exhaust his or her domestic remedies, before approaching this Court unless there are good reasons for not doing so.  In casu, the applicants did not proffer any reasons, let alone good ones for not exhausting domestic remedies.  For this reason the application should.”

See also Cargo Carriers (Pvt) Ltd v Zambezi & Others 1996 (1), ZLR 613.

Tutani v Minister of Labour Manpower Planning & Social Services and Others 1987 (2) ZLR 88.

I find that this appeal is improperly before me and consequently fails.

I therefore order as follows:

The appeal be and is hereby dismissed for being improperly before the Court.