Zambia National Provident Fund Board v Musukwa (SCZ 15 of 1995) [1995] ZMSC 49 (12 October 1995)

Ifj THt Sd?RE>-j-. 'CJURT FOR ZAi'iJIA iiOLJEJ AT UJS-hKA (Civil Jurisdiction) SCZ JUoGj-iERf &). 16 Or 19S5 APPEAL ,40. 14 OF 199J 3ETJEEJ: Zambia National Provident Fund .-oard Appellant anu Rowlands dusukwa respondent -orarn: eardner A. C.u., Sakaia A. O. C. J., and Ghana J. S., 15th uune, iGGe and I2tn October, 19C3. J.3. Theu _egal Counsel, Z.:?F appeared for the appellant. The respondent appeared in person. Gardner delivered the judgment of the court. Oitju. iEo r Cases referred to:- (1) . v Zambia Oxygen, SCZ Judgment no. 25 of 1939. (2) . (3) . Francis y ..unicipai Council of Xuala Lurnpar, (19-5?.) 3\A11 E. R. 533. Aubanga v Zamuia Airways Limited SCZ Judgment ao. 3 of 1SS2. This is an appeal against a decision of the Industrial Relations Court ordering tne reinstatement of the respondent in his employment. Tne facts of the case are that the respondent was employed oy the appellant and, curing tne course of nis employment, as an active union member, engaged in union activities. On two occasions letters were written concerning the respondent's taking part in union activities to the detriment of his duties as an employe?. I here .«or.* also complaints that the respondent, after being given permission to absent himself from work for personal reasons, over-stayed the period given to him for his absencead reported late for duty. 2/.............. a (92) Genor.iiiy, the evidenc: cf tne appellant's witness was that the respondent was an un-satisfoctor/ ^liployo?. Finally, on the 4tn of Septemocr, 19£1 a letter was written to the respondent in tha following terms:- ZAjBI.a UAT1UHAL ?fl3VIDE»if .-oUj 4 th September, Z*?f CWF. 1/18/G302 r;r. Rowland riusukwi a-gistry Clerk Provident : iouse L’JSA. W dear >ir„ Nusuxwa JOTICE OF JlSCiUkGF 1 ’in writing to give you notice of discharge from tne services of th- loard with c-ffecc from today’s date, 4/0S/9Z out that you will aa given a month's P’y in 1 ru of this notice. This notice is senyco on you in accordance with Regulation 15 of tnc Board's Conditions of Service :<ogu let ions wnich uovern your employment end th relevant S-.-ctioa reads as follows:- ;j-2 The director m.-y disp ose with the services of an -st'olishcd employee in addition to nis right to invo.ee the provisions of the Articles 19, 21, 22, 23, Ze and 25 on th„ following grounds and sn 11 give the employee q)1q month's notice in writing if 15.2(5) employee's rapaval is likely to facilitate improvements in tne department to which he is posted "•*"•*•****•••••***••«•*.-. - - ,J In accordance under rf arene you fram the s hereof. with Section 1 e, you may _ ? ?f ? J-rd<s -'niiiti3ns of Service .lagulntions ■ . * + 7 , tn- do^rd against my oecisian to ciiscn^raa vice of tne Tparo within a period f 14 days fram th: date Yours faithfully 0 ,i < .iuiwiia (nrs) uLlcCTCvl cc . Personnel and Training rnag.ar cc 3p'rations .lamger cc Financial Controller /Ins." 3/........... The respondent cwl.aiaed t« th3 Industrial Rzl.iti ns S<;urt tint he h’ci men wrongly disraiss'o, and that court, having hoard the evidence, f ’und tn at tne c jpioints ab’ut the reap indent’s c nduct w.?rc c ntrodict ry nd that tiaerof re no must have been dismissed f :r taking pvt in Union activities c*ntriry t c.j .- pr visi ns f secti n 5 (ii) if the Industrial ;?ui'ti vis Act which roods as fJH’ws:- ;,(ii) hr c;npl?y~r r any person ettng n nis oehalf shall: (e) prevent, dismiss pon'liso r discriminate ig .inst ;.r deter ?.n .^ipl./yoo frvn exercise ny _f the rights c aferrad '-n him by subsecti m (1);" Secti-n J(i) provides tn t every cupl yoo sir’ll n v- the- right at any opprepriato cine t: t'ko pvt i,i tie activities ;.f a trade uni09 end t absent hims *If with ut loov? for the s'lo purp-s? of taking pvt in such activities. As a result >f such finding tti: Industri'i iirlexi ;ns C'-urt ’nulled the ippell-nt's o.’cisi a t giv-i n;ticc t . th: respondent :nd direct e th.? re-insc’temont ?f ch-e resmadont with eayrnjit of -H arrears >f pay and ..taer ban,-fits. Thu .ippollnnt aes w-?ieu “gainst that fincing and '••rdcr. ».r. ineu ;n behalf cf tiic- epp.-ll^nt s ici th;t, under secti n 1J8 e.f the Inc’ustrirJ >c:lations Act tm Industrial . L'l’.ti.ns Jourt ins p >*:r U* r,-insc ’.te an employee who was dismissed because he w;s discriminate** against fer certain reasons. >L argued tn.’t tving part in union activities was srt )ne f the reis-.ans f r discrim!n?.ti ;n ruforrec t*' in the Act that consequently the Industrial ?.elati ?ns Court bed n:.i power ta 'rt’er re-instatdaent in to is case. Tar- respondeat in r.-ply irguoc that ho agricc Jitr. t.12 eecisi n of the Industrial ho loti vs Court but was unobl? to answer the eopellaat’s argument tnat ro-inst-itr .lent c ulJ not be _rc‘erod in the circumstancus vf tiiis coso. (.4) fUitncr argued tint, under section 5(.j) of the .ict a penalty :f j fine- w’s provided f f d p^eci, -»nc under th.- principle set ut by tnis c urt in tx c'S' -f Hapeeza v Zambia Oxygen, (1) re-instatemgfit could ;niy be or~arx if it were t un. tint th c?s_ rs nn exception t. the rule Chet re-instnt.ement is very rarely orderc... oy ths courts. pgr jo with ceuns-i f-r tn? oppc-lipnt and c. fl-firm th-'t there is no t-1t.opy pj’»Lr t) “rdcr re-instot—fitht fcr jr..2ch cf socti.d 5{ii) cf th; Act. as we s?ic‘ in i,bp?-»za v Zambia Oxygen, thor; is no auto-oatic power tb •'rdc-r r.;-instit-^nt wicn ? stlut: has bean ureac. TOd. The nly statutory p;war f;r th? Incus trial >kr.ti.ns d.-urt t :r-.er r. -instcLemont is under tie pr -visi ns f ScCti n iU-3 ?f tne ?*ct .vnera tier., has be sn uiscrirdn ti-jn f-T any - f tlx rjosons set :ut in tint setkn. In -any bther circemst'‘nc.s this ext has on »<rny ccasi ons iii .icatc-d that we ’.ccc-pt tn 2 principle- l?i-j Gr.wn in Francis v .iu.iicipai Council f Auals Lumper, (-J that is tu siy, tir.t rc-inst?tjnc»"«t, even when it is f'und t‘r.t then is n. p>-er f ar , ismiss'l, wiil n t be •r^arc- unless there “.re exc -pti jn?a circuaslances. Th.- ;niy excipti-'H’i circusistsnccs tnnt this c'urt rs f.^ nss bean in the cas? f nu’jeng . v Z -mbi-i Airways Limited, (3) in xnich w-3 f:-und tirt, wnerc- a dismiss'! w’s gr.'ssiy unf iir oec'us. f ’ vendetta carri?J out by 'n v.?lcyer's manager acj-'inst tne p-leintiff, >3n.: '/here m ergcmciit f tnc derene-'.nt cwupany hns since- Ching.*’, re-instalment c nji.i ne ppropriit -. In this cso tn.ere ar: n - except! rri circlesc?..ic-s. ino res? 'ndent was given :nc mon ch’s pay in lieu .f n..t.iCv in ■’,cc r; anew with the contract :f service wj.; n itiicr r.emaJ/ is evnil ibic to ni.s. r the reasons wc u-:*c given the 1$ "nd the ':r' ;r fer rc-inst?. Uu£nt cn-:’ p\yf<._nt .f arrears -f -7 is set usko. myna n._ er-.'wr as t? c.sts ?f this cppeal. J. T. AJTLJG Qi-Ht.7 JdSTUZ £. L„ S. AKALA ACTIJG JE2JTY CHi£.- JJSTIC£ .-:. S. Crt/dLH 3dP,2H.id CjJAT CJ3Gc