Marovanyika F.V. (N.O.) v Moreyear Investments Company (Pvt) Ltd t/a More Harvest & Anor

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/80/2023
HARARE, 13 MARCH 2023 &
16 MARCH 2023
In the matter between: -
MAROVANYIKA F.V. (N.O.)
APPLICANT
---------


==============================

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE

JUDGMENT NO LC/H/80/2023

HARARE, 13 MARCH 2023 & 16 MARCH 2023

CASE NO LC/H/1162/22

In the matter between: -

MAROVANYIKA F.V. (N.O.) APPLICANT

MOREYEAR INVESTMENTS COMPANY (PVT) LTD t/a MORE HARVEST

1st RESPONDENT

JOHNSON MAPIRA

2nd RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable Kudya J

For the Applicant In Person

For the 1st Respondent F. Marozva (HR Manager)

For the 2nd Respondent T. Ndoro (Legal Practitioner)

KUDYA, J:

This is an application for the confirmation of a ruling in the matter between Johnson Mapira and Moreyear Investments Company. The background to the matter is that Mapira lost his job with Moreyear on notice. Aggrieved by the job loss he approached a labour officer who ruled that the termination on notice was not regular as it was not in sync with the law set out in Sec 12(4)(a) to (d) of the Labour Amendment Act.

Moreyear is opposed to the confirmation of the ruling. Its argument is that Mapira was performing below standard so he had to be relieved of his duties by the termination on notice. It is settled that termination on notice is permissible but only within the parameters set out in Section 12(4)(a) to (d) of the Labour Act. See Greatermans Stores v Minister of Public Service SC-18-20. It is the court’s view that the labour officer correctly held that the employer retained the common law right to terminate but as now regulated by statute. The employer cannot use under performance as its excuse for the termination on notice. All that was required of it was to act within the parameters set out in 12(4)(a) to (d). In the court’s view if the employer was of the view that the employee was not performing well it had the remedy to conduct disciplinary proceedings. It chose not to use that route despite its misgiving about his performance. It is clear from a reading of the ruling that the employer did not comply with Section 12 4(a) (d) of the Act. To that extent it erred when it terminated the employee’s services on notice. The labour officer was therefore correct to rule that the termination was unlawful. The employer to that extent has to reinstate the employee or if reinstatement is not tenable it has to pay him for the remaining duration of the contract. In the result the ruling is upheld.

IT IS ORDERED THAT

Application for the confirmation of a ruling in the matter between Moreyear Investment Company and Johnson Mapira being merited it be and hereby succeeds. Ruling in the matter between Moreyear Investment Company and Johnson Mapira be and is hereby confirmed. Moreyear Investment Company is to reinstate Johnson Mapira to his position without loss of salary or benefits for the remaining component of his contract of employment. If reinstatement is no longer possible Moreyear Investments is to pay Johnson Mapira damages in place of reinstatement to the extent of the unexpired portion of the contract of employment. Each party bears own costs.

Saidi Law Firm, 2nd Respondent’s Legal Practitioners
--- END OCR FALLBACK ---