adminMarozva and vehicle inspectors Mr Brian Mupanduki, Mr Clerk Charogwa, Mr Taurai Masiya, Mr C. Patsika, Mr W. Shambahweta, and Mr P. Masaraure.
They were jointly charged of prejudicing the State of over US$15 000.
The seven were tried at the workplace by a board and convicted of several charges.
The disciplinary committee recommended that the seven be dismissed and the Ministry of Transport, Communication and Infrastructural Development fired them.
Delivering judgment, Labour Court president Euna Makamure last Friday, said the corruption charges against the seven could not be sustained because there were no specific charges violated.
The State argued that the seven had failed to obey lawful instructions in contravention of Section 7 (1) (a) of Road Motor Transportation Act 1 of 1997.
The seven were also charged of dishonesty by issuing certificates of fitness to vehicles without operator’s licences.
The inspectors disputed the charges saying they were charged and convicted for refusal to obey a lawful instruction when there was no such instruction.
They also argued that corruption was never proved and that the decision to dismiss them was predetermined as Transport, Communication and Infrastructural Development Permanent Secretary Mr Partson Mbiriri did not give any reasons for dismissal.
Mr Wellington Magaya of Coghlan, Welsh and Guest represented the appellants while Ms Salome Chihuri of the Attorney General’s Office represented Mr Mbiriri.
“I am persuaded to agree with Mr Magaya . . . Charging a person with violating any provision of a particular Act cannot be said to be specific,” the court ruled.
“Further the respondent in its heads of argument did not address the corruption charge. It is therefore my considered view that there is merit in appealing against the earlier tribunal’s findings on this charge.”
Ms Makamure said there was also no evidence to prove that the seven had failed to obey a lawful instruction.
She said the provisions referred to in Act 1 of 1997 direct what drivers of the relevant vehicles ought to do than what the appellants were required to do.
The appellants were employed as vehicle inspectors and not as drivers. They therefore did not fail to obey any lawful instruction.
The court said the appellants were not afforded a chance to address in mitigation before the penalty of dismissal was meted out.
This, the court said is in violation of Section B (4) of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01, which requires mitigation to be considered before the appropriate penalty is imposed especially where dismissal is a possibility.
“In view of the foregoing, I find that there is merit in the appeal. It is accordingly ordered that the appeal be and is hereby granted.
“The Respondent be and is hereby ordered to reinstate each of the appellants to their positions with no loss of salary or benefits with effect from the date of dismissal,” the Court ruled.
Ms Makamure said in the event that reinstatement was no longer possible, the respondent should award the seven appropriate damages as agreed between the parties “in lieu of reinstatement”.
Should the parties fail to agree, the court said either party may approach it for quantification.
The Ministry of Transport, Communication and Infrastructural Development also dismissed several inspectors in Chiredzi, Marondera and Nyamapanda over similar charges. Some of them have appealed against the dismissal and their cases are still
pending at the courts.
Online Reporter