Panyika Mataga & 11 Others v Gyproc (Pvt) Ltd

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT
LC/H/648/2014
HARARE , 09 SEPTEMBER 2014
CASE NO.
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	 JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/648/2014

HARARE , 09 SEPTEMBER 2014	                CASE NO. LC/H/CON/201/12

AND 10 OCTOBER 2014

In the matter between

PANYIKA MATAGA & 11 OTHERS	 			Applicants

And

GYPROC (PVT) LTD						Respondent

Before The Honourable P. Muzofa, Judge

For Applicants 	-	A. Chambati  (Legal Practitioner)

For Respondent	-	R. Matsikidze (Legal Practitioner)

MUZOFA, J:

This is an opposed application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court made pursuant to the provisions of section 92F of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01].

The applicants were employed by the respondent in different capacities.  The applicants raised a grievance claiming they were being underpaid and nonpayment of shift allowances.  The matter was subsequently referred to an arbitrator Honourable Chavura.  The arbitral award, whose interpretation is the basis of this application was made in the following terms

“… I order that they (applicants) be paid the balance of their wages and the outstanding shift allowances, plus interest of 30% per annum.  The union should assist the employer in calculating the outstanding wages and allowances …”

When the union representatives duly negotiated the outstanding wages and allowances a document was drawn indicating the amount due to each of the applicants.  The said document indicated the payments as the full and final settlements.  A union representative affixed his signature on the document and one of the employees who is not part of the applicants but was part of the employees when they appeared before the arbitrator.  Following on this the applicants and other affected employees were made to sign on a separate document for their monies which amounts were the same as on the first document.  I should indicate that the second document signed by the employees including the applicants did not have the “full and final settlement” clause.  After receiving the monies and realizing that the respondent did not pay them anything thereafter the applicants applied to the High Court to register the arbitral award.  The application was unsuccessful since the award did not sound in money.  The applicants then made an application for quantification.  Respondent produced the documents showing that applicants had been paid in full and final settlement.  The arbitrator thereupon dismissed the applicants’ application.  The applicants noted an appeal to this Court but it was out of time.  An application for condonation for the late noting of appeal was filed.  This is the application that this court dismissed on the basis that the applicants had no prospects of success on appeal.

The grounds upon which applicants seek to impugn this court’s judgment is the interpretation of Honourable Chavura’s order.  It was submitted for the respondent that the order clearly gave a mandate to the trade union representatives to negotiate on behalf of the applicants.  The extent of the mandate is what the applicants wish to place before the Supreme Court.  It is this court’s considered view that the applicants be allowed to have this court’s interpretation of the mandate tested on appeal.  This court should not stand in the way of the applicants in their pursuit to exercise their right to appeal.  The application should therefore be granted.

Respondent requested this court to grant costs on a higher scale.  I believe since the court has granted the application, the request falls away naturally.

The following order is made.

The application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court be and is hereby granted.

No order as to costs.

CHAMBATI, MATAKA & MAKONESE ATTORNEYS, Applicants legal practitioners

MATSIKIDZE & MUCHECHE, Respondent’s legal practitioners