Banda v Paladin (Africa) Ltd (IRC MATTER 28 of 2014) [2020] MWIRC 3 (23 October 2020)

hadusirial Rel: ns Coeur ‘as = . piss KR, re THE MALAWI JUDICIARY IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF MALAWI MZUZU REGISTRY 1. R. C. MATTER NUMBER 28 OF 2014 BETWEEN ALFRED MASANYA BANDA................000seeceseeeeececeneeereeenes APPLICANT PALADIN (AFRICA) LIMITED ..............0-.2csceeesceecnseeeeneereseees RESPONDENT CORAM: HIS HON. KINGSLEY D. MLUNGU, DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON MR PRINCE MPASAKUPHE, EMPLOYERS’ PANELIST MR ALEXANDER LUNGU, EMPLOYEES' PANELIST MR BRACIOUS KONDOWE, APPLICANT'S COUNSEL MR MOSES CHINKHUNTHA, RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL MR HEZRONE MHONE, COURT CLERK JUDGEMENT 1. INTRODUCTION The applicant commenced this action by way of IRC Form 1 and filed witness statements for trial. The Respondent replied by way of IRC Form 2 and also filed its witness statements and skeleton arguments. Hearing of the matter took place on the 12th day of December, 2019. The applicant was the sole witness of his case where as the Respondent paraded three witnesses and both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence to support their cases. 2. THE EVIDENCE Both witnesses adopted their written witness statements and both parties adopted their respective final submissions and skeletal arguments filed in support of their cases. We will only have recourse to the same whenever there is need to do so in the course of this judgment. However, the applicants evidence and the Respondent's crucial evidence will have to be highlighted. 2.1 APPLICANT'S EVIDENCE The applicant was employed by the Respondent on 15th April, 2008 as a Mine Surveyor and was dismissed from employment on 17" December, 2012. Events leading to his dismissal are that on 1s: December, 2012, he was heading a team that was to do some surveys at Karonga Airport and his assistants were Philod Mtuta, Brison Kasonda and John Ngwira whom he instructed to load survey equipments into the motor vehicle that was to be used fo travel to Karonga Airport. He said he specifically instructed Philod Mtuta to load a Global Positioning System {G. P. S) into this motor vehicle and off they proceeded to Karonga Airport, On 2.4 December, 2012 as they were setting the Global Positioning System at the said Airport, Philod informed him that one box was missing from the motor vehicle and it was the one which contained the Repeater which surprised him as he did not instruct Philod to load it since it was not necessary for the work at the Airport. Brison Kasonda told him that he had seen the Repeater at the Airport where as Philod and John Ngwira said they had seen it at the Open Pit when they were packing but could not confirm that it arrived at the airport. Since the Repeater was being used by Mota Engil surveyors prior to their trip to Karonga Airport, it was resolved that they should continue working and check with Mota Engil team when they arrive back to the mine but had first to check with the Airport Office watchman. On 3% December, 2012, they looked for the Repeater at the mine but they still did not find it and by 6» December, 2012, he had confirmed that the Repeater was indeed missing. As such he decided fo report to his manager in his office but he told him he was going for a management meeting. He attempted twice to do so but he could not find him and he just sent him an electronic mail informing him that they should discuss. His manager then called him and informed him that he should go to the Security Office to make a statement though he had not briefed him of the missing Repeater. He explained all to the Security Office and emphasised that he had not instructed his Assistants to load the Repeater on to the motor vehicle to Karonga Airport. Later on he found out that his Assistants had already been interviewed and he did know what they told the Security team. The then Acting Security Manager labelled him a liar and thief and told him to find the said Repeater otherwise he was going to be fired. He then placed posters around Karonga municipality with a photo of the said Repeater so that recovery should be made and that anyone who has seen or find it should bring it either to him or the nearest Police Station. He put a reward on the Notices and also made announcements in churches through Brison Kasonda. On Monday, 10 December, 2012 at around 11.40 hours, he received a phone call from Karonga police through an investigator, Mr Mwakaila, who informed him of the recovery of this Repeater and it had been at Karonga Police Station since 0294 December, 2012. He then informed Mr. Kapira, the Respondent Security Officer and they both went to Karonga Police Station where he described the Repeater and thereafter they collected it back to the mine but it was after the police informed them that the Repeater was found with a former Paladin employee and was detained since 024 December, 2012 to 06" December, 2012. 2.2. APPLICANT'S ARGUMENTS ON HIS UNFAIR DISMISSAL 1. That his Assistants had their statements about the missing Repeater written by the Security Officer whereas him was never given a chance to make a written statement. 2. On 13h December, 2012, around 16.00 hours he was informed by the Human Resources Department that there would be a Disciplinary Hearing against him on 17? December, 2012 whereas his Assistants were never charged with anything and were not summoned before the Disciplinary Committee. 3. During the Disciplinary Hearing, it became clear that the Acting Security Manager had misrepresented his Assistants’ statement like that of John Ngwira as he disputed some statements that were attributed to him, and the Security Manager conceded that he had indeed wrote that statement and not John Ngwira. 4. During cross - examination, he was stopped from asking questions a number of times and the Security Manager kept answering questions on behalf of the witnesses; and that his Representative Mr Ashems Songwe, was barred from saying anything throughout the duration of the disciplinary. 5. His length of service, past record and performance were not considered when a decision to dismiss him was made yet the Disciplinary Code states that this ought to be the case for any employee. 6. When he indicated his intention to appeal, he was ordered fo surrender all company property and was escorted home by Security Personnel thereby making him fear that the appeal will not reverse the dismissal but rubber stamp it. 7. The Respondent ignored the fact that the Repeater was found due to his initiative and there was no loss on the company. 8. His dismissal was premeditated as the Respondent's witnesses had their statements doctored by the Security Manager who had already told him that he would be fired coupled with the disallowing of his Representative to speak. 2.3. RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE RW1: RONALD KAPIRA; SECURITY MANAGER He stated under oath that on 5 December, 2012, he received a report from the Mining Manager, Mr. Arthur Mulilo to the effect that a Global Positioning System Radio Repeater, DL 450L UHF system which went off site on 1st December, 2012 has not come back on Monday, 034 December, 2012 and this fact had been reported to him surreptiously. He told him to inform the Security Manager, Douglas McGibbon which they did together. He went on fo say that this equipment valued at US 3,055.13 (MK 978,558.14 then) belonging to the Mining Survey Department was the responsibility of the Senior Mining Surveyor, Mr Alfred Banda, the applicant herein who went to Karonga Airport with Mr Philod Mututa, John Ngwira and Bryson Kasonda. The Security enquiries established from the Security Guard Mr Ausia Mbughi was that on Saturday, 15* December, 2012. After 18:00 hours, Mr Alfred Banda and the said aforementioned Assistants arrived at the main gate in a White Toyota Hilux producing only a vehicle Permit and not a separate Removal permit Gate pass for the equipments contrary to the Mine Policy and when asked by this guard, he said the equipment were noted on the vehicle permit form (exhibit DM 2) In light of the absence of this Removal Permit, Mbughi inspected the rear securable storage area of the vehicle and noted 4 yellow hardened cases and allowed the vehicle to proceed. On 7h December, 2012, him and Mc Gibbon interviewed John Ngwira, Bryson Kasonda and Philod Mfuta and finally the applicant herein without first warning them and the first three officials answered questions with honesty as per their conduct and demeanour as opposed to the applicant who was very contradictory. (Their evidence to RW1 and McGibbon will be referred to later except that of Bryson Kasonda as he gave evidence in this court.) He went on to say that Mtuta when interviewed corroborated what Ngwira and Kasonda had stated in their interviews as all had played some part in the packing of the equipment and knew the equipment was contained in four yellow hardened cases. This fact was corroborated by Mr. Mbunghi, the security guard, who noted the same number of cases when the vehicle went to exit the site. He stated that in answer to the question from McGibbon, the applicant stated that his three Assistants were undecided whether the equipment in question was packed at the mine to Karonga Airport, as one said yes, whilst another said no and that only three cases were offloaded from the rear of the vehicle. On why he never reported of the missing equipment to Mr Mulilo, his Head of Department or to security, the applicant responded that he had been waiting for Ngwira to report back to him on his findings and also that he had been busy writing reports all week and no one had come to him to say there was a signal problem with the equipment in the pit so he assumed the Repeater had been found and was in use. After feeling certain that the applicant knew the whereabouts of this equipment, they ended the interview by informing the applicant to bring it back on site by Monday morming and on 7th December, 2012, he and McGibbon saw an A4 notice on the Dining Facility Notice Board in camp offering a reward to anyone who may have found the equipment, which they found strange as the applicant insisted that the equipment never went missing at the mine. see exhibit DM 5. Their suspicion that the applicant was setting the ground for plausible explanation were confirmed as on Monday, 10! December, 2012, the applicant phoned him that the Karonga Police had contacted him to inform him that the missing equipment had been found. 5 On McGibbon's instruction, he accompanied the applicant to identify and recover the equipment at Karonga Police Station. The Assistant Commissioner, William Kadzayekha stated that the Global Positioning System was found with a mad man, Noel at Karonga Airport on Sunday, 2"¢ December, 2012 and he was arrested for four days and got released where as the said Global Positioning System was placed into their Exhibit Room since then and it was only when posters of this Global Positioning system were posted around karonga over the weekend that they made contacts. Knowing this version of events contradicted the evidence they had, McGibbon and him attended Karonga Police Station together, on Friday, 14h December, 2012. They met with A. C. P. W. Kadzayekha and McGibbon asked if he could verify as part of his investigation certain records which he knew are a formality any Police Station is required to complete when an arrest is made or property is recovered. To that end, the front office Occurrence Book was summoned by Kadzayekha and no reference was found. When an officer was called he stated that he had written the details on a piece of paper and had asked his colleagues to enter them and did not know why his friend had not done so. McGibbon then asked to view the Detention Register, of the material day, but only one name appeared with no name provided by A. C. P. Kadzayekha and there was no entry in the Reason for Detention Column. When they asked as to what time ‘Noel’ was arrested, they said 22.00 hours contrary to what they had told him on Monday, that if was around midafternoon. When McGibbon asked to view the Exhibit Register he was told the Global Positioning System was never booked in as the keys could not be located on this Sunday. When McGibbon asked about the arresting officer's report and /docket book, nothing was produced and when asked to interview this ‘Noel’, no reasonable answer was given. When McGibbon inspected this vehicle, Toyota Hilux, he found it impossible for the yellow case to fall out of the nearside window as there was insufficient area and that it is obstructed by roll bar in front of it and rest of cab is fully enclosed. Further, the falling could have happened on the uneven dirt road from the Mine to Karonga road or the 50 km journey to Karonga and as such the Police version of events as fo how it was recovered at Karonga Airport was not plausible. He concluded by saying that as the custodian of such an equipment, the applicant did nothing to timeously attempt to locate and recover the 6 equipment. It was already 16.00 hours on Friday when he was interviewed and had made no attempt within the five days to report the absence of the equipment to anyone, therefore one could reasonably conclude he had no intention of reporting it. Only after stringent interview about the circumstances of the missing equipment did the applicant make an effort to locate it, which conveniently happened within the window given to him fo return it and ACP Kadzayekha’s version of recovery bore no plausibility ait all. He went on to state that The applicant's claim that he did not see the equipment in the vehicle when departing the mine is not a defence as he signed a declaration in regard to the equipment he was responsible for taking offsite and should, therefore, have physically checked it himself. RW2: BRYSON KASONDA: SURVEYOR ASSISTANT He stated that together with Philod Mtuta, Jonn Ngwira and Ronald Chizumira packed 200 wooden pegs in the Toyora Hilux Registration number BP 665 to Karonga Airport on 2-4 December, 2012. Mtuta together with Ngwira went to the main pit and dismantled a Radio Repeater which was being used by Mota- Engil and packed it into a yellow hard case and loaded it into the said vehicle and after parking every necessary equipment they drove back to the mine offices and started off to Karonga around 18.00 hours. The driver was the applicant. At the main gate Ngwira, Mtuta and himself went out on foot through the pedestrian gate for searching process while the applicant cleared the equipment with the security guards and after clearing he picked them up and went to PAL Exploration offices in Karonga to put 2 batteries on charge. This charger was packed into one of the 4 cases in back. After removing the charges he closed the back drop canopy door securely and took the charger back inside, After they finished putting the batteries on charger they returned to the vehicle and the applicant dropped each of them individually at their respective locations fo get transport home. On Sunday 2"4 December at approximately 07.00 hours, the applicant picked them to the Airport and Ngwira started offloading boxes from the vehicle. After removing | yellow hardened cases, he discovered there was a case missing and he asked him to confirm which he did and it was the one with the Repeater. Mtuta asked the applicant about the missing case and the applicant stated that he only offloaded three yellow cases at his house the night before and 7 Upon reviewing the appeal, the Respondent established that the applicant’s appeal showed that he did not have any other new evidence or witnesses to substantiate his appeal and that he failed to sufficiently prove that the original hearing had any procedural flaws or anomalies and as a matter of fact, the applicant admitted his weakness on his email sent to the General Manager dated 18 December, 2012. With these facts, the Respondent decided not to re- hear the case and upheld the committee’s verdict and punishment. The witness then tendered documentary evidence marked as exhibits “CC1” to “CC14" in support of his testimony. 3. THE LEGAL ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED. (i) Whether or not the applicant’s termination was procedurally and substantively fair. (ii) Whether or not the applicant should be awarded the Reliefs sought in his IRC Form 1. 4, THE APPLICABLE LAW Section 31 (1) of the Constitution provides that: “Every person shall have the right to fair and safe labour practices and to fair remuneration.” Section 57 of the Employment Act states that: (1) The employment of an employee shall not be terminated by an employer unless there is a valid reason for such termination connected with the capacity or conduct of the employee or based on the operational requirements of the undertaking. (2) The employment of an employee shall not be terminated for reasons connected with his capacity or conduct before the employee is provided an opportunity to defend himself against the allegations made unless the employer cannot reasonably be expected to provide the opportunity. Section 61 of the Employment Act, 2000 provides that: (1) In any claim or complaint arising out of a dismissal of an employee, it shall be for the employer to provide the reason for dismissal and if the employer fails to do so, there shall be a conclusive presumption that the dismissal was unfair. (2) In addition to proving that an employee was dismissed for reasons stated in section 57 (1), an employer shall be required to show that in all circumstances of the case, he acted with justice and equity in dismissing the employee. 5. ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE IN RELATION TO THE APPLICABLE LAW. Dismissal must be fair and section 58 of the Employment Aci states that a dismissal is unfair if if not in conformity with section 57 or is a constructive dismissal pursuant to section 60. Accordingly persons who are unfairly dismissed are entitled to the remedies provided in section 63 of the Employment Act. In Chakhaza v. Portland Cement (2008) MLLR 118, Potani J. commenting on section 31 of the Constitution as well as sections 57 and 58 of the Employment Act had this to say: “Regarding the claim arising from the termination of the plaintiff's employment, it must be acknowledged, as a starting point, that while an employer can bring to an end an employee’s employment, that has to be done in accordance with the law. The Supreme law of the land, that is, the Constitution in section 31 accords to every person the right to fair labour practices. As a way of reinforcing section 31 of the Constitution, section 57 of the Employment Act lays down the parameters within which termination of employment can be properly and legally effected. In terms of section 57 of the Act, any termination done without conforming with section 57 amounts to unfair dismissal and entitled the dismissed employee to the remedies provided for in section 63 of the Act. The question the Court has to deal with is therefore whether in terminating the plaintiff's employment the defendant acted in conformity with section 57 of the Employment Act. A negative answer would entitle the plaintiff to appropriate remedy. And commenting on Section 67, Dr Chilumpha wrote in his book, Unfair Dismissal; Underlying Principles and Remedies, Montfort (2007) p.14 as follows: “First, it is for the employee to prove that he was dismissed by the employer. Specifically, he must show that his employment was terminated by, or at the initiative of the employer: Second, having proved the dismissal, the employee is not required to go further and show that it was unfair. On the contrary, at that point, the evidential onus shifts to the employer to prove that the termination of employment was in fact fair. To quote the South African Labour Court, 'the employer is statutorily bound to establish the fairness of its employee's dismissal. See OCGAWU & Another - 10 v. County Fair Foods (Pty) Ltd (2001) ZALL 169, Para 98. Per Gumble, AJ. And to discharge the burden, the employer must show that he complied with sections 57 and 61. The wording of these provisions clearly casts upon him the onus of proving the fairness of a dismissal. They require him first and foremost, to demonstrate that he terminated the employment for a reason, and not just on awhim. In fact section 6] (1) places him under a statutory duty to provide the reason for doing so. Failure to provide the reason creates a conclusive presumption that the dismissal was unfair.” In Jawadu v. Malawi Revenue Authority (2008) MLLR397, the IRC held that: “In cases of dismissal, it is not just a matter of producing reasons and conducting a hearing in compliance with section 57 (1) and (2) of the Employment Act. A Court will go further to find out if the termination was justified. If the reason is not supported by evidence, the Court may conclude that there was no justification for dismissal. The burden of substantiating reasons for dismissal is on the employer. Where the employer fails to prove the reason on a balance of probabilities, there is a conclusive presumption that the dismissal was unfair. The Court went on as follows at 408: “It is therefore not enough to just allege a reason. The employer must justify it with evidence, See also Mahowe v. Malawi Housing Corporation, Civil Cause No. 368 of 2000. Counsel for the Respondent was therefore completely wrong in law to suggest that the employer's obligation in termination of employment was just to provide an opportunity to be heard and not to prove the allegations by calling witnesses and requiring the employee to defend himself.” The Court also stated as follows: “In considering whether a termination is fair or unfair, the Court must consider whether there was a valid reason for termination. In determining whether a reason was valid under section 57 (1) of the Employment Act 2000, the Court must consider whether the employer acted with justice and equity in considering that reason as valid for dismissal see section 61 (2) of the Employment Act, 2000 which is an extension of section 57 (1) and also see Masambe vy. Illovo Sugar (Malawi) Lid, Matter No. IRC 23 of 2006 (IRC).” On whether or not the Right to be heard was breached: Before reverting to analysing the facts of the present case, the sentiments of His Honour M. C. C Mkandawire as he then was, in H. C Kasambala v. SOBO Lid, Matter No. IRC 305 of 2002 are very helpful on what constitutes the right to defend oneself: dt Again there were no accusations of one being a judge in his own cause in the appeal ground because if it were so the applicant could have raised the same in the grounds of appeal. Accordingly, in the circumstances of this case, the applicant was duly accorded an opportunity to be heard by inviting him to a disciplinary hearing where he stated his side of the story and also cross — examined the Respondent's witnesses. On whether the reason for the applicant's termination of his services was valid and justifiable, this Court proceeds as follows: The law as expounded in the applicable law above, is that the onus is on employer to provide the reason for dismissal and if the employer fails to do so, there shall be a conclusive presumption that the dismissal was unfair. Further, it is also clear from the discussed authorities that an employer shall be required to show that in all the circumstances of the case, he acted with justice and equity in dismissing the employee. See section 61 of the Employment Act. Thus, where an employee brings an action against the employer that he was unfairly dismissed, the duty to show that the reason for dismissal is valid and that he acted with justice and equity in dismissing the employee, lies on the employer. Accordingly, in determining whether the reason was a valid or justifiable, the Court, inter alia, checks if the employer acted with justice, equity and fairness in dismissing the employee. Accordingly, if however the reasons shown appear to have been a sufficient reason, it cannot be said that the employer acted reasonably in treating it as such, if he only did so in consequence of ignoring matters or information which he ought reasonably to have known and which would have shown that the reason was insufficient. Furthermore, in considering whether the reason necessitated a dismissal, the reason must be supported with sufficient evidence and the employer ought to have regard to all other relevant factors such as the nature and gravity of the charge; past record of the employee and any other aggravating or mitigating factors. If that is not the case, the Court will go further and examine the reasons given for termination and acts of misconduct complained of and try to find if the termination is justified. See Jawadu case supra and Mahowe v. Malawi Housing Corporation, supra. 13 performed his duties satisfactorily well. The Managing Director DW 1, says that he was not aware of any misconduct of the plaintiff before his dismissal for all those years. It is also in the evidence that his retirement was being contemplated, or at least he had three years to go before he retired at 60. He was already due for early retirement at the age of 55 .| know DW 1 is saying that due to fraud it was fair to effect instant dismissal. When reaching this decision of dismissal | wonder whether they considered the duration the plaintiff had worked and that during all that time he had not committed acts of misconduct. Section 61 (2) of ihe Employment Act has a vital purpose to play. It is not there for nothing. li ought to be applied as it denotes fair labour practices. In fact it envisaged a situation where one is found guilty of misconduct for which he could be dismissed, but may not be dismissed due to prevailing relevant circumstances which would make it unjust and inequitable to dismiss the employee. | would not be wrong to say that the section calls upon us to consider mitigating circumstances. Decisions must be human by taking into consideration all circumstances of the case. It is not just enough to say an act of fraudulent misconduct has been established such as the cases of Mkandawire v. Capital Oil Refining Industries Ltd (1997) 1 MLR 448 and Meja V. Cold Storage Co. Lid (1990) 13 MLR 234. When these cases were decided section 61 (2) of the Act was not law then. Their Legal position that an employer cannot be expected to keep an employee who has committed an act of misconduct comprising fraudulent activities still makes sense but this should be subject to section (61 (2) of the Act for completeness sake to day.” In the present case, the applicant has testified that the Respondent's Disciplinary Code states that an employee length of service, past record and performance have to be considered when a decision is to be made but they were not considered in his case. This piece of evidence was not disputed at all. In fact articles 5.7 and of 5.8 of the Respondent’s Disciplinary Code and Procedure provides as follows: “Sanction to be fair and Consistent: The sanction that is imposed should always be fair, appropriate to the offence and consistent with the penalties imposed in respect of previous similar transgressions, to ensure consistency in the application of discipline. When considering the appropriate sanction regard must be had to the mitigating factors and extenuating circumstances of each case. 5.8 Flexibility Allowed 15 Despite the above, care should be taken to avoid rigidity and flexibility is allowed to cater for the individual circumstances of each case, without setting a precedent for future cases.” We now refer to the Notice of Intention to appeal form of the applicant, marked as "CC12.” The ground of the appeal is premised on the applicant's feeling that the charge of ‘gross dereliction of duty/negligence’ was too harsh and so is the sentence of termination of services. The applicant did submit therein that: 1. He took personal initiative and put in place measures that ultimately led to the recovery of the lost item regard less of the circumstances. There was no monetary loss on the part of the company since the item was recovered after he had pledged his own resources. Length of service: he has been with this company since its inception through thick and thin. Past record. This was his first offence since he joined the company. Accountability for the Equipment: he took responsibility for the equipment since 2008 and he always looked afier this whole set including keeping it in his house. When they were surveying exploration works at Mpata, they could leave the site on a Friday and return on Monday morning on more than four occasions. No one piece of equipment ever went missing including the time they were surveying water pipes from the lake to the tanks in Karonga on three occasions. He has been a custodian of the equipment since it arrived on the mine exercising full responsibility even when there was no security at the gate when they could just drive in and out without checking systems (no gate vehicle permits or other documentation) in place. To that end if he had any ill motives, it could not have been part of the inventory now and no one was going to know. Professional initiative and personal investment: At one time the equipment was broken down and he was advised to send it for repairs and hire another which could have costed the company in excess of $22,000 per month plus repair costs but he used his initiative to repair it even though he is not an instrumentation Engineer thereby saving a lot of money for the company. That the item in question is not a Repeater but a Base Radio and it took his initiative to be working as a Repeater. That he has learnt a big and bitter lesson which will make him improve and do better. 10. His age, health and family responsibility: 16 He was 47 years old and supported a big family including his aged and sick parents (86 years, mother, and 94 years, father}. He was involved in a terrible road accident in 2011 which left him not in the best form of his health. He concluded by saying that based on the above factors, he strongly felt that preferential consideration on technical, responsibility, past record and on humanitarian grounds should be taken into account, so that the charge can be re — phrased and the sentence modified and that he was ready to accept any form of corrective and punitive measures that can be meted out on him other than termination. He then prayed for forgiveness and promise never to let this event happen again. Later on he sent an email to the General Manager of the Respondent Company, John Chandler pleading for mercy and leniency acknowledging his error in delaying to report of the missing item. Thus, in view of the foregoing, this Court having analysed the facts of this case and the applicable law, we feel this is a proper case whereby the Respondent could have considered the strong mitigations herein to explore the avenue of alternative punishment such as suspension with or without pay, and or demotion as per the provisions of secfion 56 of the Employment Act and Article 5 of the Respondent's Disciplinary Code & Procedure. This having not been done, it is our considered view that we should interfere with the employer's sanction of dismissal, the applicant having pleaded that the employer did not act with justice and equity in light of the evidence before this court and the circumstances of the case. To that end it is concluded that the applicant's dismissal was unfair in as far as sections 57 and 61 (2) of the Employment Act is concerned. Accordingly, the applicant ought to be entitled to the remedy of compensation as per section 63 of the Employment Act to be assessed by the Registrar of this Court. Any aggrieved party has got the right of appeal to the High Court within 30 days from the date here under as per section 65 of the Labour Relations Act. 17 Dated 234 day of October, 2020 at Mzuzu. K. D obey DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON ‘ol. PRINCE MPASAKUPHE EMPLOYERS’ PANELIST my ALEXANDER LUNGU EMPLOYEES’ PANALIST 18