Lilford Nhandara v Stratia Beverages

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT
NO LC/H/739/16
HELD AT HARARE 12 JULY 2016
CASE NO
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/739/16
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE			JUDGMENT NO LC/H/739/16

HELD AT HARARE 12 JULY 2016				CASE NO LC/H/LRA/25/16

& 18 NOVEMBER 2016

In the matter between:

LILFORD NHANDARA				Applicant

And

STRATIA BEVERAGES				Respondent

Before The Honourables Musariri &  Kudya, JJ

For Applicant		In person

For Respondent		L Tshuma (Loss Control Officer)

KUDYA J:

This is an application in terms of Section 93 (5) (a) of Labour Amendment Act No 5 of 2015 for the confirmation of the ruling made by the labour officer in a matter pitting Mthandaza Sibanda and Stratia Beverages.  The argument giving rise to the decision by the labour officer was around issues that the employer had deducted certain moneys from the employee’s salary outside what the law provides for.  It was also accused of reducing the employee’s salary unilaterally.

The employer conceded that it indeed owed the employee the money he claimed but it counter argued that he had not given them the monthly requisite notice when he left employment thus making him liable to it in the total sum of 3 months’ salary as worth of notice.  To that extent it was the employee who was therefore indebted to the employer given that what he was owed by the employer was less than what he owed it in the form of the 3 months’ notice salary figure.

The labour officer went ahead and ordered that the employer pay the employee what it owed him since it had no legal basis to make the deductions it made neither did it have the legal basis to vary his salary documents without his agreement.  On the confirmation date the employer maintained that it was facing viability challenges hence could not pay as ordered by the labour officer.  It however hastened to state that the employee also owed it as he was legally obliged to give 3 months’ notice when he quit his job.  It therefore contented that if the order were to be confirmed it would need to be confirmed to the extent that it orders that the employee pay to the employer the overpayment which he received on account of the breach of the 3 months’ notice period.

A reading of the facts presented before the labour officer shows that there is no contention on the issue of the 3 months and the irregular deductions.  What is apparent is that parties stood at fault with the employer having deducted money from the employee’s benefits without following due process.  The law is clear in section 12 Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] as to the circumstances under which the employer should deduct.  The circumstances of set off which employer alleges are not covered by that law.  To that extent the court is satisfied that the labour officer’s order was sound at law and it deserves to be confirmed as it stands.  The counter claim in the court’s view forms a subject of a separate legal process and cannot be used to refuse confirmation of the labour officer’s order.

IT IS ORDERED THAT

The labour officer’s order of 2 February 2016 being sound at law it be and is hereby confirmed with costs.

……………………..

KUDYA J

…………………….		I agree

MUSARIRI J