Amc Banda v Central East African Railways (Misc. Matter 1 of 2002) [2002] MWIRC 34 (11 July 2002);
Between 1984 and 1999, the Applicant was employed by the now defunct Malawi Railways. When Central East African Railways took over The Court would also like to make one more observation in this case. The Applicant seem to he such a character who was not serious
HON. M.C.C. MKANDAWIRE, CHAIRMAN
Applicant – Present
In his Statement of Claim, the Applicant raised trade disputes of unfair termination of employment and withholding of his transport
money. He further prayed for the relief of transport from Lilongwe to Mzimba and compensation for unfair termination. The Respondents
denied the allegation made by the Applicant saying that he was not at all entitled to transport allowance.
in 1999, the Applicant was re-employed by them but was put on probation. His position with the Respondents was that of Senior Constable
in the operation’s department (transport department). Whilst on probation, the Applicant got a severe attack of T.B. As a result
of this attack, he had to be on medication and could not work. After recovering from T.B., the Applicant went to report for duties
on the 1st of March, 2000. To his surprise, he was handed over a letter that his services had been terminated. What further puzzled him was
that the initials on his termination letter plus the employment number were not his. He tried to enquire from the Respondents about
this anomaly but to no avail. As a result of this frustration, the Applicant requested the Respondents to repatriate him to his home
in Mzimba. After observing that there was no co-operation from the Respondents, the Applicant decided to file this matter with this
Court for redress.
The Respondents confirmed most of what the Applicant had told this Court. They however said that as per the appointment letter which
is Applicant Ex No.2, they were entitled to what they did by dispensing with the services of the Applicant forthwith as he was still
on probation. In relation to the claims the Applicant was demanding, Mr. Kamange who is the Human Resources Manager told the Court
that the Applicant was not entitled to them at all. He further elaborated that after Malawi Railways was bought off by the Respondents,
all the former employees with Malawi Railways were paid their dues for their previous services and the Applicant was one of them.
The witness tendered in Court several documents including cheques as evidence that the Applicant was paid his dues. The witness further
told the Court that there was nothing that the Applicant is owed and that some money was paid through officials who literally went
to deliver the cash to him as he was bed ridden. Upon termination of service, the Respondents paid the Applicant his pension refund
and all other necessary money that he was entitled to as a probationer.
It is again settled as a fact that one of the conditions while on probation was that the Applicant’s employment could be dispensed
with forthwith. It is again settled as a fact that the Respondents invoked that clause and dispensed with his services. From the
documentary evidence that surfaced in this Court, the Applicant was paid all that was due to him. The Applicant accepted all this
money. His argument that the initials were wrong ones does not really impress me in view of the surrounding evidence. If the initials
on the termination letter were not his, one wonders as to why he received the money. The Respondents told this Court that the mix
up in the initials and number were just as a result of a clerical error. Otherwise the Applicant was the one whose employment was
terminated. The Court found that the mixture in initials does not really go to the roots of this case because fundamentally, the
surname and other initials were for him.
with the word “truth”. In the first place, he told the Court that Malawi Railways (1994) Limited did not pay him his
terminal benefits and that he was advised that he would get his benefits from Central East African Railways. When the Respondents
furnished this Court with proof that he was already paid this money, the Applicant changed his story just like the way a chameleon
changes its colours when confronted with danger. The Applicant then told the Court that he did not get his pension refund. But the
Respondents have again produced evidence of a cheque which was signed by him having received the refund. May be the Applicant forgot
the fact that records of payment are maintained in offices. I thus had very big doubts when he later on told this Court that the
K1,589:70 cash and K84:60 cash were not paid to him. It is extremely difficult to believe such a man who has told the Court two big
lies. The Respondents’ story was more probable than that of the Applicant. After all, the Respondents had already paid him
substantial amounts what could have made them fail to honour only K84:60.
In relation to is claim on transport, I am afraid to say that the conditions of appointment on probation do not warrant him to get
transport to his home. Moreover, he is now at work in Blantyre. One wonders how he would be operating from Mzimba with his employment
in Blantyre. I find that the Applicant’s claims have got no foundation at all and I do dismiss them in their entirely.
DELIVERED this 12th day of July 2002 at Lilongwe.