Chilemba v Illovo Sugar (IRC Matter 42 of 2007) [2008] MWIRC 8 (27 February 2008);
IN
THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF MALAWI
CHIKWAWA
REGISTRY
MATTER
NO. IRC PR 42 OF 2007
BETWEEN
CHILEMBA
.APPLICANT
-and-
ILLOVO
SUGAR
RESPONDENT
- CORAM: R.
ZIBELU BANDA (MS): CHAIRPERSON
Malijani;
Employers Member Panellist
Kajombo;
Employees Member Panellist
Chikwama;
Assistant Human Resources Manager
Applicant; Present
Gowa;
Official Interpreter- CORAM: R.
Facts
The
Respondent employed the applicant on 20
July 1998 as Clerk. He was dismissed at the position of Assistant
Human Resources Officer
on 16 May 2006. Reason of dismissal is that
he was accused of processing loans to employees without the concerned
employees
authority and getting the money out of the processed
loans for his own personal benefit. Applicant claims termination was
unfair
in both substance and procedure. Substance because the
allegations could not be substantiated by documentary evidence
linking him
to the alleged impropriety. Procedure because the officer
who wrote him the termination letter was the one who complained
against
him, sat on the disciplinary hearing committee and
consequently wrote the letter terminating his services. He alleged
that one
person played complainant, jury and judge in the same case.
Respondent called two witnesses who were victims of the alleged
unauthorized
processed loans. The witnesses gave evidence on how they
were deducted loans that they had not applied for, and narrated their
attempts to have their loan situations cleared by the Applicant. Each
time they complained the Applicant promised to look into their
issues, and sometimes promising to pay them from his (Applicants)
own pocket. Applicant accepted that the complaints took some
three
months without being addressed and without the informing his bosses.
Assessment of facts and
the Law
Applicant
was unconvincing in his assertions why it
took him three months to investigate the complaints of unauthorized
loan deductions. There was no proper explanation from
the Applicant
why he did not bother informing management of the complaints. The
Applicant was responsible for loan processes and
therefore was
responsible for the loan scam. The court found as a fact that the
loan deductions were unlawful and were meant to
benefit the Applicant
personally. The Applicant acted fraudulently and or dishonestly. This
was valid reason for dismissal, see
generally, Asson
v Securicor (Mw) Ltd [Matter Number
IRC 60 of 2001 (unreported)] IRC.
The
hearing was fair. It was shown that there
was no bias in the proceedings. In fact the hearing took several
adjournments to accommodate the Applicants
demands for fairness.
It complied with fair procedure under section 57(2) of the Employment
Act.
Finding
The
reason for termination was fair. The procedure leading to termination
was also fair. The Applicant fails in his
claims for unfair dismissal. The action is dismissed in its entirety.
Pronounced
this 28th
day February 2008 at CHIKWAWA.
Rachel
Zibelu Banda
CHAIRPERSON
Nick
Chifundo Kajombo
EMPLOYEES
PANELLIST
Aiman
Malijani
EMPLOYERS
PANELLIST