Herbert Magoronga v GDC Whelson Hauliers

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE                JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/48/2013
HELD AT HARARE ON 19 FEBRUARY , 2013              CASE NO. LC/ H/368/2012
In the matter between



HERBERT MAGORONGA                      –           Appellant
And

GDC WHELSON HAULIERS                   –           Respondent




Before The Honourable L. Kudya, President
For Appellant        - In person
For Respondent       - J. Nota (Human Resources Manager)




KUDYA, L.

      This is an appeal against the decision of the Arbitrator who dismissed the

Appellant’s case on the basis that it had prescribed as provide for in section 94

of the Labour Act.



      The brief facts of the case are the Appellant was dismissed in 2007 by

Respondent following a hearing at the Respondent’s workplace. Appellant did

not do anything to register his disagreement with the dismissal case until

sometime in 2010 when he approached the labour officer with the view to

having his case re-visited. He ended up at the arbitrator’s where the arbitrator

noted that the claim was out of time he thus dismissed the claim on that basis.

        It is that dismissal which the Appellant prays the honorable court to set

aside and allow his matter to be heard on the merits.
                                                                JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/48/2013


       The law pertaining to appeals against arbitral award is clearly set out in

section 98(10) which provides as follows “An appeal on a question of law shall lie to the

Labour Court from only decision of an arbitrator appointed in terms of this section.’’ A reading of

this section shows that only Appeals on questions of law shall lie to the Labour

Court against arbitral awards what is a question of law has been clearly spelt

out in the case of Dalny Mine vs Banda SC-39-99 3 scenarios are spelt out in

that case that is what the law is, what the laws has spelt out to the exclusion of

all else and a gross misdirection on the facts indicating that the person

presiding officer had not applied his/her mind to the facts before him/her.



       In the instart case section 94 expressly provides for the period within

which one shall register his grievance on al llabour mater Appellant does not

deny that he brought his matter out of the time limits. He however prefers

reasons why he could not act within the stipulated time lines. He even offered to

tender document any proof to the fact that for that long while he was receiving

Tuberculosis treatment hence he could not pursue his case.                        A reading of

section shows that it makes not room for exceptions such as the one that

Appellant seeks the court to consider. It is clear that the Arbitrator interpreted

the law well and correctly observed that the matter was out of time hence hos

hands were tied and he could not deal with it on the merits. The court cannot

fail his reasoning as that is what the law says and it makes no exception. In the

result the court is not persuaded that there was any misdirection on the point of

then Arbitrator. The court is satisfied that the appeal against his decision is

therefore without any -----at law. It therefore must fail.



I accordingly ordered as follows:


                                                                                                 2
                                                               JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/48/2013


The appeal being without merit be and being without merit be and is hereby

dismissed.

The arbitrators decision is to stand.

Each party to bear its costs.



Signed

L. KUDYA                        --------------------------------------------

President Labour Court
Mugwagwa and Company - Respondent’s Legal Practitioners




                                                                                       3