IN THE
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF MALAWI

PRINCIPAL
REGISTRY

MATTER
NO. IRC 459 OF 2002

BETWEEN

MMANGENI…..…………………………………………
……………......APPLICANT

-and-

CARLSBERG (MW) BREWERY LTD……..………...
……………..RESPONDENT

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

A MALIJANI;
EMPLOYERS’ PANELIST

M PADAMBO; EMPLOYEES’
PANELIST

Respondent; Absent without
excuse

Applicant; Present

Chimkudzu; Official
Interpreter

JUDGMENT

Facts

The respondent employed the
applicant on 12 January 1992 as General Worker. He was dismissed on 7
September 2001. The reason for
dismissal was dishonesty. It was
alleged that the applicant attempted to steal a carton of soft drinks
from the respondent. He
was found with a carton containing five cans
of soft drinks at the gate without authority. The applicant was
invited to a disciplinary
hearing to answer to the charge. The
applicant was asked to explain but his explanation was not
convincing. He was dismissed. He
challenged the dismissal in this
court. The respondent did not attend court.

The court
heard evidence from the applicant. He explained what happened on the
material day. He admitted that soft drinks were found
in the vehicle
in which he was riding home after his shift. He however denied that
the drinks belonged to him. The court considered
the applicant’s
testimony and the documents on record. The court concluded as a fact
that the applicant attempted to take soft
drinks out of the
respondent’s premises without authority. The reason for termination
was therefore valid as it involved dishonesty.

The Law

Misconduct involving theft
has been held to constitute valid ground for dismissal, see: Ibrahim
v Suncrest Creameries Ltd [Matter Number IRC 73 of 2003
(unreported)] IRC.

In this
matter the applicant admitted that soft drinks that were not
accounted for were found in the vehicle in which he was riding
home
after his shift. He admitted that no authority was given to him or
any of the occupants in the vehicle to take out the drinks.
He
however blamed someone else for the drinks. He did not call this
person to confirm that the drinks were indeed his and how he
had come
to possess them. The court therefore found as a fact that the
applicant was responsible for taking out soft drinks from
the
respondent without authority.

The
applicant admitted that he had attended a disciplinary hearing. He
was given a notice of hearing to answer the above charge.
He appeared
before the disciplinary committee where he was asked to explain his
side of the story. The court found as a fact that
the applicant was
given a fair hearing before termination.

Finding

The court finds that the
reason for dismissal was valid and that the applicant was accorded an
opportunity to state his 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 5^th day of March 2008 at BLANTYRE.

Rachel
Zibelu Banda

CHAIRPERSON

Aiman
Malijani

EMPLOYERS’ PANELIST

Maxwell
R Padambo

EMPLOYEES’ PANELIST