TZW
Justices Sauda Mjasiri, Batuel Mmilla and Rehema Mkuye ruled in favour of the academicians, as appellants, arguing that their termination was not fair and that the institute, as respondent in the appeal, had not provided valid reason to end their employment services.
They noted that the respondent gave a different reason for termination of the appellants in the termination letters allegedly for “civil disobedience” and that of “participating in an unlawful strike” through the media, which the justices found to be not proper means of communication.
Such circumstances, they ruled, “...prove that (the respondent) had no valid reason or fair reason for the appellants’ termination.
Coupled with the reason that fair procedure before termination was not followed, it vitiates the whole process.”
The justices further observed that the appellants were not properly charged before the Disciplinary Committee before they were terminated from their employment services. According to them, it was obvious that the respondent violated the cardinal principle of right to be heard. “Consequently, the appellants’ termination was void and of no effect.
In the final event, we find the appellants’ appeal meritorious and allow it.... Hence, since the appellants were denied their fundamental right to be heard, we quash all the proceedings of the CMA (Commission for Mediation and Arbitration) and the High Court and set aside their decisions thereof,” the justices declared.
They further ordered that, if the appellants may so wish, institute proceedings against their employer before the CMA so that their rights could be determined.
Facts show that the appellants, who were working with the respondent on permanent terms, were terminated from their employment services on August 17, 2011 after having allegedly participated in a strike from June 28 to July 21, 2011.
Having been aggrieved by the termination exercise, on September 2, 2011, the appellants referred the matter to The CMA, opposing the decision of their employer.
The CMA entertained the matter and found that though the respondent had the right to terminate their employment substantively, the termination was flawed for the reason that the appellants were not given a chance to defend themselves during disciplinary hearing.
It ruled that the whole process of termination was unfair as per section 37 (2) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act. The CMA awarded each of the appellant compensation of 12 months’ salary, severance allowance and one month’s notice in lieu of notice.