K Dzimwasha & ANOR V Kuwadzana 7 Primary School

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/322/2016
HARARE, 24 FEBRUARY 2016 &
13 MAY 2016
CASE NO LC/H/931/2015
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	         JUDGMENT NO LC/H/322/2016

HARARE, 24 FEBRUARY 2016 &				         CASE NO LC/H/931/2015

13 MAY 2016

In the matter between

K DZIMWASHA							   1ST APPELLANT

And

ANTONIO								   2ND APPELLANT

Versus

KUWADZANA 7 PRIMARY SCHOOL				   RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable B S Chidziva J

For the Appellants    V M Gwande (Trade Unionist)

For the Respondent   S Mangoma (Trade Unionist)

CHIDZIVA J:

This is an appeal against the arbitral award by Honourable J Mateko that was handed down on 4 September 2015. The appellants were employed by the respondent for a period of (9) nine years as security guards. They were then retired after reaching the age of 65 years. They then approached the arbitrator with the claim that they had been unfairly dismissed. The arbitrator dismissed their claim stating that termination was done fairly on retirement.

It is common cause that:

The appellants were notified of their retirement through a letter dated 27 January 2014.

The appellants were paid their terminal benefits through their banks i.e.

Gratuity

Notice pay and

Leave days accrued

The appellants had reached the retirement age of 65 years.

What is to be decided is whether retirement was to be through mutual agreement or as provided by the NSSA Act [Chapter 17:04] and the Pensions Provident Funds Act [Chapter 24:09].

Section 26 (1)(a) of the NSSA Act S I 393/1993 provides that an employee can retire from the age of 60 years.

The NSSA Act [Chapter 17:04] provides for the retirement of age as 65 years. This therefore means upon attaining this age employment is terminated. This therefore means that there is no need to consult the employee about the termination. The respondent complied with section 12 and 2A of the Labour Act by:

Notifying them about the retirement;

Paying their terminal benefits which they paid through their banks.

The appellants duly accepted the benefits and have already used them. Mr Dzimwasha was 68 years old at the age of retirement. He had even gone beyond the stipulated age of 65 years.

In view of the foregoing therefore the court finds that the appellants were not unfairly dismissed.

Accordingly the appeal be and is hereby dismissed with costs.