Court name
Industrial Relations Court
Case number
IRC Matter 36 of 2004

Mthega & Otherws v Shoprite Tradind (MW) Ltd (IRC Matter 36 of 2004) [2007] MWIRC 64 (14 November 2007);

Law report citations
Media neutral citation
[2007] MWIRC 64
Coram
Null

IN THE
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF MALAWI




PRINCIPAL
REGISTRY




MATTER
NO. IRC 36 OF 2004



BETWEEN




MTEGHA & OTHERS……………………………………
……………...APPLICANT






-and-




SHOPRITE TRADING (MW) LTD……………………..…………….RESPONDENT








CORAM: R. ZIBELU
BANDA (MS.); CHAIRPERSON

M. CHILENGA;
EMPLOYERS’ PANELIST

PADAMBO; EMPLOYEES’
PANELIST

Chizuma (Ms.) Ag. Deputy
Chairperson

Applicant; Present

Respondent; Absent without
excuse

Ngalauka; Official
Interpreter






JUDGMENT



  1. Dismissal-
    Reason-Misconduct-Dishonesty-Consuming Stork-Without authority


  2. Procedure-Right to be
    heard-Disciplinary hearing- Fair




Facts


The applicants were
employed by the respondent. They were working in a take away food
outlet. They were accused of consuming stork
without authority. They
were invited to a hearing. They denied the allegations. The
respondent was not convinced and they proceeded
to dismiss the
applicants. The applicants challenged the dismissal hence this
action. The respondent contended that the dismissal
was fair.

The Law


Section 57(1) of the
Employment Act provides that before dismissal a person must be
provided with a valid reason. While section
57(2) of the act provides
that where the reason is connected with a person’s conduct, he must
be given an opportunity to be heard.

Several
cases have held that in all cases of dismissal, an employee must be
given a valid reason and an opportunity to state his
case and defend
himself. See for example: Beseni v Education Department of Nkhoma
Synod
[Matter Number IRC 320 of 2002 (unreported)] IRC.








Misconduct
involving misuse of company property including consuming company
stork without authority has been held in this court
to constitute
valid ground for dismissal, see: generally, Hamuza & another v
Dwangwa Sugar Corporation
[Matter Number IRC 169 of 2004
(unreported)] IRC. In this case it was clear to the court that
applicants had indeed acted dishonestly.
They misused company
property, i.e. eating company stork without authority.




Finding


The court finds that the
reason for dismissal was valid and that the applicants were accorded
an opportunity to state their case
before dismissal. The respondent
complied with the requirements of the law. This action is therefore
dismissed in its entirety.





Any party aggrieved by
this decision has the right of appeal to the High Court within 30
days of this decision. Appeal lies only
on matters of law and
jurisdiction and not facts: Section 65 (2) of the Labour Relations
Act.




Made
this 15th day of November 2007 at BLANTYRE.






Rachel
Zibelu Banda


CHAIRPERSON






Joel
Evalisto Chilenga


EMPLOYERS’ PANELIST






Padambo


EMPLOYEES’ PANELIST