300 Former Air Zimbabwe Employees Lose Court Appeal For Reinstatement
Three hundred (300) former Air Zimbabwe employees who were dismissed several years ago, have lost their appeal against their retrenchment at the Labour Court, reported NewZimbabwe.com.
The former Air Zimbabwe employees were fired following the infamous Zuva Petroleum Private Limited 2015 judgement which led to the termination of over 6 000 jobs in a week.
The judgment (SC 43/15) established that an employment contract can be terminated by either party after giving notice.
The former Air Zimbabwe workers challenged their dismissal at the Supreme Court wherein it ordered a reinstatement of the employees and payment of damages in lieu thereof.
On 12 December 2020, the first respondent reinstated the appellants, paid them all their dues, and placed them on unpaid leave.
While they were on forced leave, Air Zimbabwe was placed under administration in terms of the Reconstruction of State Indebted Insolvent Companies Act Chapter 24:27.
Sometime in March 2021, Air Zimbabwe initiated a retrenchment process for the appellants and paid them the minimum terminal benefits in terms of the Labour Act. They received and consumed the benefits.
After that, they complained that Air Zimbabwe had not complied with the Supreme Court order to reinstate and that in any case, the retrenchment exercise was flawed.
The matter then spilled to the National Employment Council (NEC) which concluded that the Supreme Court order had been complied with.
NEC representative Ellen Nyamanhindi further found that by taking and consuming the retrenchment package the appellants had waived their right to challenge the process.
The former Air Zimbabwe employees argued that NEC grossly erred on a question of law by failing to appreciate that a retrenchment is not alternative relief for reinstatement ordered by the Supreme Court and Labour Court.
However, Labour Court judge Justice Custom Kachambwa ruled in favour of Air Zimbabwe. Part of the judgement reads:
Termination of employment on notice is acceptable under common law whether the reason is economic or otherwise.
Given the facts of the case, one can safely say that the appellants knew of and accepted the retrenchment when they accepted the back pay which was more than they were owed.
They cannot then cry foul saying that they did not know that the back pay included their retrenchment package. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
The appellants received and acknowledged receipt of retrenchment letters…
The appellants were reinstated and waived their right to the procedure for retrenchment. The appeal has no merit in the circumstances.
It is accordingly held that the appeal be and is hereby dismissed with costs.
More:Â Pindula News
