19970227 TZHC Dar es Salaam2

IN ~ HIGH COURT OF TAHZ/1.NIA DAR BS ShIJu\H DISTRIC'.r REGISTRY ;. C~VIL APPEf-u. ID•70/95 .i APP;:lAL lmOH Tl{8 DECISICN 01"" RM• s COURT 1crsuru !i'T El-iPL CIVIL CAUSE 40/95 I.uRIS tsI107l. • • • • ••• • •••• o o • • • • • • • • • • • • .APPLICAN.r VERSUS .~~-_:. !~.:- - .. ~1\.W.M'l1,ttA RA:rt;.11.ys i~Tte)ij •• •• ~.RE.sJ?OWENl' IDRIS ISIID:! 1 hcreini.iftei- the nppel.lrui.t, i.s represented by ur. 1,~aruca, u leru:-11ed Senior Labour Of fie er am, he t1.le bot\-,e~n 1:l1Q lat l.i"'ebruo.ry, 1985 nnC. 20th Av.0-ust, 1991 DJl. ~ of Tiu-1"':,i:...NJ:.A ru-.I:U·IAYS, the ,ec:."l'nuent. Ile ,-,::\G summElri.4' di.srnisse?C1 ey the rospondo-nt on the 20th AuQlstt 1991 on account of disciplln;:.ry misconduct. Agcrrievecl by tho..t <lisri1isscl., the ~ppelln.nt pursued his reinstutet1cnt procedure. plus other benefits with a Reconcilie..tion Boo.rd under the Security of Employlilent Act 1 Cap. 574. The appcllo.nt uon• The respondent was orderecl by the rcconciJ.iation Bourcl tha.t us from 14th September 1994 the a1.,pellnnt hnd to be reinstated to his e1aployocnt nnd that he had to be all reliefs as ttere indicated ill a letter addressee! runong others to the responc.:ent. It ,-ms upon the appellant ~temptillG to have th.at decision of the Boo.rd enforced o.s if it 1•1erc a decree of the Resident Mot:;i.stro..tes• Court ut Kisutu, plus being granted all his reliefs, that, that Court (A. J,.. Nchimbi Esq. SRM) on a preli1iti11t"'J..I"IJ objection rcisec~ by the rcspon.lent• s Corporntion• s counsel i·VS NY!u-UZI IBP..:UIIM iJASHOIGill:l1 learned Principal Officer, dismissed the applicntion. Ar5GI'icvecl by this decision, the appellant's o.ppcD.l. is bused on three grounds of appeal as follot·rs ( I quote) 0 1. Thnt the learnetl Senior Resident Uacistrate seriously erretl in lm·1 and fa.ct in not holdin~ ·that the intent ruxl purpose of the Tanzo.nia Railways Cor1Jora.tion Act, 1971 is not for estublishi.nB the machinery for settlement of labour disputes. . .. 2 - 2. Truit the learned Senior Resident Matr.l-strate seriously erred in lru-1 and fact in not holclillG that the proper ,:my of clla.llen._~ the decision of the concilic.tion Board or the Minister for Labour .-'U.nder the Security of' &nployment fl.ct Cap. 574 is by ,,_ray of certi<n"N."i ruid Mandamus in the Hi@l Court • .3• That the let:1.t'.ued Senior Resident Haisistrate seriously erred in law in not hol<li.ne; that in absence. oi- ·the respondents appeul. to the Bilti.ster for ID.boUl" a6ainst the decision of the Concilintjon BoD.rd. 1 the court had jurisdiction to enforce the decision of the Conciliation Board~ if it were a decree passed by a Court.n After hetlri.ng submissions from learned counsel for the parties, let ue point out at this jru1cture that ground number one of the mernoranclun1 of appee.l quoted herein above, could in my most considei-ed opinion be the only one on t-1hich the merits or othenri.se of this appeal \1hich rney- .suff'ice to dispose of this appeal· exbnnsj t i ~ . That- is wheth.or or not the 'I'au:zzu:d.t,. Ra:i.1~ Corporr;i~i.m1 Act 1.'b. 11 of: 1917 is not fc:i~ estt3blishing the maclti.ncry for s e t t ~ q£ :tnl">oin- tiiSI>tttos. Hr. Muruc;aruca in settinc; a backi;round to the ~ o n s on thut cround of ai>peal stated that in absence of a.n appeal to the Minister :!or Labour i11 01)pcsition of c1 decision of l\ reconciliation Bonrd, as tJas the cnse in this appeal, tlw.o- tw;.t. decision of the Board reme.ined i'inru. ·conclusive and bin.di no on the pcrties to the dispute. He further stated that decision hacJ. 1 in complicincc with section 27 of the Secµri ty of Employment Act Cap. 574, to be .enforced as if it were e, decree of a court. It uas on the basis that the respondent had neither apperu.ed to the Minister for Labour to challenGe the Boarcl•s decision nor filed any application to the Rich Court of Tru17_.mua for orders of certiorari nnd mandamus that the appellc.nt <.lecidecl in March 1995 to file the Employment Ca.use No.4o of 1995. Let it be notecl here that Mr. Hurug:u•ue,-a pointed out to me that an appeal to the Hinistcr for Labour was expected to have been filed ui thin 28 clays uhile an application for the \ll"its · before this court had to be done i--Jithin 6 raonths, in each case, the period being counted. from the d.ate of the decision of the Boord. 1'.s an authority for an application for 1;r:i."its before court Mr. Mru~a quoted tq_ r;1e··the case of Malrontla v. The Manaeer of Bast. Afri~ap_Raih,ays {1970) H.c.D. n.24-. where Georges c.J. (as he •· _... ti1en wo.s) held that the 1:1ay for clmllcngi.nr.; any clecision of ..../► . a reconciliation Boo.rel is by wo.y of certiorm-i ru1cl mo.ndamus. l'ir. Mur'u:_:;aruca arQ10d that the i'Mz..-u'.liu Railways Act No.11 of 197(<-1:id not bar an er.1ployee of its corporo.tion to i~efcr its enployncnt dispute to a Bocrtl un,~er the Security of Ernployncnt Act, Cap. 574. He cited the case of Mahom v. University of Dc.r es LJ.::0.c.,:~m (1'.)81) T.L.R. 55 1.-1here it wo.s held by Kisr:mca,J (us he then uas) that 11 uhere ·1Jorlil:.r.1~p.t _pnkc_r .P!-92B,l-.S}P.~• .Z<?!. ~U?];E;~L10.~t__:i:Jl,!.GJ..§l.ti.<?.A. ~0- A ..12.~.t.i.?.~~~~~t~i_<;>_l_l_ )·1}.i~ }'.)2::£.Vj_s_i._9.11Er~--?.~l:..C$'~~t.~ ~\l!_o,s2.}._!1, the Sec~!l_ 9f 15!!J2..~?.)11il_C}.J-_! 0 fi2h ~tJ~e1;1n~e.E.s. _th~ }?.9.P:.t..~a.F"J._~~ e_~r~_~cl it ,.!<?.1¥~...1?.e.. .o~_to ~J.x _t..,h,~ .1'..£~'1.s.~.9..~ ,o,;~-~.!.t:.1'J-.S.~. J~c__t,. J?.1:.<?YJE.~.JhP·i ~s.~9.12..1?:..C?.V.~.o.1?~ E!,.':..2:P,Pli_e..<l._c.9£E.e.£t}:Y;: (emphasis supplieC.:) Mr. Mllrll1;c.ruL:,--.::i. contim1.~d to add that in the.t case the honourable Juclc;c ,·ms cor:l)?.:n-inc machinery for settleuent of disputes obt&ining in the University of Dm- es Sc.laarJ J~ct anc.: that provided by the Security of E1Jplyi.:c;nt Act. In reply M/S Unsholcera snid that as the appellant had. not pursued his er.iploymcmt dispute with the respondent's Board of Directors, the appellant beir?G fl.n employee of a corpor2.tion of c:1.cfunct E~st il.fricnn Comuon Dervices Orcrutlzation or tl!-r.f of the sclfcontained services of the B.A.c.s.o., under section L~(i)(a) h"i) of t11e sccu..-ri ty of Employ11ent Act .).Ile'. Section 9i~ (I) of tl10 To.n'."C-'.i-5.a Railuc.ys Cor1)oro.tion Act l\b. 11 of 1977, could not hn.ve referrct: liis erll)loy1,1<:mt to the Board unc'.cr the Security of 1\:r,.oloyrn:nt Act Cap 57~-. Instead M/S ~·!ashol.::era insisted that the proper clisciplinr::ty mc:.clri.ncry for enployees of the T.R.c. like the a11pcllant is Lcr;o.l Notice J:lb. 7 :mcl. the 1962 Staff Regulations as savetl by section 9~- (I) of the Tanzaniu Ro..ilwcys Act No. 11 of 1977 Uncler section 93 of the TRC ilct 1977 the Minister rcsponsibJ.c for that Corporntion (Transport) is eupouered to r,mke rc[:;ulations for the functionin:: of that Corpor~tion Section 94 of the Act reuds:( I quote) :i9l} (I) Until rcGUJ.ntions nre 1i1ncle by to Minister uncler this .t~ct, all subsi<lim-y leL'i.slntion, other tho.n sttlJsidinry regulations relatin5 to pensions, 0Tatuities, or other superanuation benefits made under the Bust Africc.n RailutiJO i',ct, shall npply Hi th ncces5c....----y medificntion, n.s if such subsidi&ll'y lcc~lations uere made under tlri.s Act.rs .•../4- C . . . 4 - ·-I,Vs 1:Jashokern also quoted to me n pDrnsraph fro□ n bool:..let of Justice Jo.mes L. H1:1alusanyu in UTARATIBU · ;,·~ :.:;m-::RIA KUTATUA MIC-ORORO YA K\ZI that quotec.l Kisan.i:.;o.,J as he then was in Mahona (supr2..) tlmt nn c;·,1ployer ..tl.,s freedom to chose t:rhich of the ti-10 Acts to be followed. She conclucler;: by prnyinc that this nppenl be dismissed with costs. ;. On my pm-t, I entirely o.o:-ec with the nppellc.nt that the To.nz.anio. Ib.ilrn1y Corporation Act No. II of 1977 u~ ...--., .. ...... --.·- 011ly , ,,., ,:.~~{\·h; Act \·rhich had estc,blish~d r,10.chinory for settlcri~~t "at disputes. Let r.10 make it elem" that tlie c.lecision in the fioh~na case (su11ra.) . )·. beinr; thc.t of this sc,i:1e . court cloes not bind me but it is ·of very hi.:;h pcrsucsive effect to a decision in this case. In the Mo.bona .. S£ ·• c~sc 1;1hc.t uas really in. iGsue uns d1ethcr the employer in terminc..tin:; ·· ; ··J}. • T -: -· , ... ··:r '.~, .1· J (.;--~~ the plointiff1 s cr.1ploym0nt, Hhich procedure of either the lliiv·~si ty ' ·; tC. r Act nnc1- the Employment flct 1;1as to be follm-,ecl uhi:ie "in this cc.so the . ':.Tr: issue is uh.ether or not the T.R.c. Act uns the only one Nhich hacl pi~ovidcd for machinery _lor: the settlcncnt of dispute. I will OJ.1S\·Tc::- thnt ncGatively. It will :not be u.~til n provision is provided for in o ection 9L~ of the T.R.:c. Act thc.t the only mcdrincry for lnbom." dispute scttlcr.1c::nt, uill only be c~one under the Act c.ncl spccificru.:.y ' . ' under Local Notice Foo? made under the Enst Afl~icun Railtmys Cor-2orntion Act 1967 that provisions of either the TRC Act or the Security of Bm]'.lloyi:1ent "li.ci;; Cnp 57L;. mny apply• I arn satisfic<l I tlw.t for those reasons .. the subordiru:i.to court caused serious . ;·· injustice uhen it c~isr;1issed the ap11licntion on preliminm-y objection. The rulinc;' ,'Uld order of the triul court m-c set 1 o.sidc. The Kisutu RH' s Court is or<lerecl, Wldcr section 27 of tho Sccuri ty of Enployr1,mt Ii.ct Cup. 57Li- 1 to en;force the clacision of the Concilio.tion Boarc\, clo.tocl the' 1t~~9;1994;·· ns a decree xr., of that court forthuith. Appeal allouecl uith I' .. costs. .1 :· n.G.c. y.,.fa.J.ERI, PRE(EJ)