19870618 TZHC Dar es Salaam

IN TIIE IIIGII COUil.T 01:1 Tf:..UZ.:J'JIJ~ LT Dil.:il ES S.".LLhN lUSCELL.i.:i'TI!;GUS CIVIL Ci.'JSE rTO. 1 OF 1987 \\ ·'. In the natter of nn o..pplication by JU'.fil.Tli. & 94 OrIIERS for leave to apply for Ord.ors of Ccrtiorm-i and Mn.m1c,DUS fl.IJ]) Iri ·tho r.10.:ttor of IGUTJ.. & i:J.JOTiillR RULING Tl.1is iG an application by J'unu.iy['.. y2, 1-fo.fn.nyakazi Tanzanic1 ( JUUf.':1111) on bolmlf of its ninety-four r.10nbors for orders of certiorari anc1- ma.ndnnus, to bring to t!1is court r.l.11CL qtIDSh tho clocision of the Fer:-.1c.ncnt Labour . TrilJUi1:al and. to direct tho Pcmn.nont Lc..bour Tribunal to hc2.r n.ncl dcternine tho trade dispute between ,nr.TJ.Tli. ancl tho or:iployor, Kiwandc chn Uchnpishaji ch11 Tn.ifr. ( KITJT,.l) • The fMts arc briefly as follows_: T1.1e ninety-four rn:iployoes of KIUTL were cleclarod roclundruri:; on 1 .ll.pril 19050· They conplincC. to .rr.r.rn.TL. On 25 Juno 1905 tho JU';ii~TA IloG'ionru. Secretary requestocl tho Socrdm:-y Gonoril.l to docl11rod a trnrl.e dispute between tho Unio;.1 and tho Respondents~ Tho dispute wc1s t:.1cn referred to tho Labqur CoB,.1issioi1or? and on 2nc.1 May 19136 the Minister for Lc..l)OUl' referred the dispute to tho Pcrnanont Labour Tribunal. In its c.ocision elated 3rd Septcr:ibcr 1906 1 the Pomanent k,1)our Tri btuial rofusocl to ),.co.r tho applicestion on tho grotu1d thc.:t the natter ho.cl no·c boon rofcrrocl to t:.20 Conciliation Boe.rd UJ.1::.ler section 40 L of the Socu:rHy of Enploynont Let~ Cc.,1;.57~... The Tribun2.l holc.l t;.in.t it m:1.,s bouncl by tb.c ctccision of tho Court of' Appeal in Civil Al)l')CC.l Ho., 9 of 1982 between Zar.11Jic., Tanzc:mia Road Servi.cos Linitcd. m1d JoKo Pallane-nyo. H wc..s Prof. Shivji 1 s subtlission on behalf of tho applicants, tho.,tithc Tribunul exrocl i:.1 rofusill[; to hec.r ·tho dispute bocauso, Prof4 Shi:vji s2..ic1-, tho relevant clocisioi1 in tho Pall11;.1,c;;zo 02..sc wc.,s given per in curinr.1o In tho I'n.lla.ngyo en.so, the Court of li.ppoal hclll, inter c1.1in, t}1c:~/c bccrume the onployoe tad not reforrod. tho dispute to the Conciliation :Joo.rel ui thin fourteen dn::rs, \_ as required lJy tho Socuri ty of Er.1plo;y--::1ont ,.·.ct 1 tho rulincs of the Tribunal that the c:Jployco 'o clisr.1issc.,l W0s vrron[;ful 11110.s invo..lid nncl hence ineff octual in as L1uch o,s i-;; proceed.eel upon tho T-.d bunal 's wron(~ assur:ipti~n of jurisdic~ion., ,, Professor Sl1ivji subr.1i ttcd t:.mt tho· Court o·? J.ppeal 1 s clecision on the natter in tl~c fallnnfe'/O c·aso wns c"\.elivercc.l "per incuric'.'.L1 1~o .. Ile s11icl that tl~o cJ.coision was Gi yen in icnorru1ce or y• ~ fori:;etfulnoss o? inconsistent sto,tutory provisions C.:nc.l it ,ms clcnonstrn.bly wronc 9 011t t:20rcf ore not binclinG' on t'.:o Tri l:JUl1al. "o "• u o/2 -2- IIo ci tod tho Enclish cc1.so of Morello Ltc7• v,, Wr,kolin,0; ( 1955) 1 All E.R., 700 in which tho Court sc1.id as f'ollous:- n11.s a conorDJ. rulo, 'tho only cc1,sos in which decisions should be hold to hci,vo boon c;ivon per incu.ric1f.l arc those decisions 0 ivcm in iG°noro.nco or forc;otf'ulnoss of sor.10 inconsistent statutory provision or of so,,10 o.uthori ty bincling on tho court concerned 8 So that in such cc1sos ::iono pa.rt of tho clocision or sor.10 stop in tho reasoning on which it is bc1socl is founcl on that bc1sis to bo clor:1011strn.bly 1-rron.3. o. u. oo., • 11 The decision in tho Morello cc1so wns followocl in Kiriri Cotton Coo y; I3oRo Dowani ( 1950) Eli. 239., l'fr. Rut[l{;n.tinn ci,ncl Mrso Ndosi uho aprJourod on behalf of tho ~l.ospondonts subr:ii ttml 1 on tho otl1or ho.nd 1 thrd; tho Court of 11.pi,oal consiclorocl the Pallanr,yo case properly anc.l tho decision was not, iii their opinion c;ivon per in curic1r:1. 1 The inconsistency which Professor Shivji roforrocl to is in sections 4 (1) of tho Pornanont Labour TribunDJ. .\ct c:mcl 4011. of tho Socuri ty of Inploy- mont .:i.Ct. IIo said those two provisions o.ro inconsistent am"'. tl,.o Court of J.ppeal cliu. not consiuor that,. Section 4( 1) of tho fornc..nont Labour Tribt.mal Act provides as untlori "4( 1) l11zy trade dispute whothor o:dstinG or ap~)ro!.1011clod 1 if not other- wise d.oterninocl nay 1Jo ro;_)orto,l to tho Labour Cor.11:iissionor by notice in uri tine Givan oi t!1or by or on behalf of tho ·or.iployor, or on behalf of tho enploycos by tho cenorru.. socrotnry of a rocistorod trndc union of which tho ooployoos nro nor.11Jorso 11 Section 4011 of tho Security of :Ebploynont l.ct Cap.,574 as nmondod by ••ct lfo.1 of 1975 provides as followsg- "40A Notwithstanclinc; ruzy other provision of this Act 1 or of 2.ny wri tton lrn-:r 9 whore an onpl oyor tornin2,tos tho or:iploynont of a1zy- er:iployoo or sumnnril,y c.lisnissos any onployoo 1 ancl tho or:iployoo is c1gf,Tiovocl by such tomination or clismism:i.1 1 tho 01i1ployeo nay at nl\1 tine boforo tho e:;;:piration of foui·toon cloys fro1:1 tho date on which such tcrnination or disnissc.l to.kos offoct rofor such torm- inntion or disnissal to tho Donr<:'.o o •• o,.. o o 11 It io true~ in LJY Viow~ t:mt t:10 I-'orr:innent LnlJour Tribu1ml ;,.ct cloo,ls with collecti vo clisputoso Tho Socuri•cy of fuployr,1ont .'i.ct <lcal8 ncinly with incli vidual clisputoso Section 4( 1) of tho Porr,mnont Labour '.::!'i bw1al I.ct docs not spocificall3r provide tho poriocl. within which disputes nay be roforrod to tho Labou;r Com.1issionor, while section 401... of tho Socuri ty of' Enploynont L.ct specifically provides that n.n n.gcriovod onployco nust refer tho n2-ttcr to a Boa.rel within fourteen dnyso But, in r,w opinion? tho.t asp.cot of' tho r.1attor, that is, tho poriocl within whic!.1 a clisputo Dc\'J be ::clcrrccl to the BoiJ.rcl uas docic.1..od by tho Court of i.pponl in tho Po1lc.nr;vo cnso. 'I1l10 Court said~ "A<lmi ttoc1..ly there a.re no provisions urnlor tho Porm:mcnt Labour Tril:n..mnl Act rolc1tinc -to lir:iitc1-tio11 of actions. But t~10 view th0,t cl2.iL1s broucht order tll::.t Act ;:i,ro not subjocJc to lini tc1tion scans un~onnblo,. If t~mt view woro to lJo upheld tho inplicc.1tio11 of it, is tlmt whore cUl cnployoc thinks tlw,t tho tcn.1i112-tion of his sor- v:i.cos is wron.3ful, ho :::ic:w del2.yJ.J...oc\s·i11[:; his g:riovcincos for ten or 3 twenty ye2.rs or oven for 2.:n inclefini to i)orioclo We t:.1ink that is u.nclosirablo and would bo objcctione,blo on policy grouncls., Such or:i.ployoo 1:mst act promptly i11 sooki11G to vimlicnto his rightso 11 Their Lordships wont on to hold tlmt section 40A of tho Socuri ty of Enployncnt Act 0,pplioso So, in tho follru1r910 case tho Court of Appeal specifically aclclrossecl its nind on tho issue of linitntion ancl decided that tl10 c.,tSG'riovod craploy·oo sl1ould l1avc { ~ ~ roforrod tl10 ne. ttor to [1 Gonciliation Boo.rel within fourteen clnys., I do not ac;roe with Professor Shi vji tl1nt tho Court of li.ppoal in tho Palln.npyo case was legislatinc on liraitc/don. Tho Court of l\.pponl nado o.n intorprotc..tion o:f tho rolovnnt provisions of tho law ancl came to a conclusion that disputes under tho Permanent Labour Tribunal l1ct nust be ref errocl to a Board within tho period spocifiocl boforo they CcLl'l bo hoard by tho Tribunal. It is theroforo not correct that the Court of l\.ppoal nado the relevant decision in ignornnce or forgetf'ulnoss of tho relevant statutory provisionsb It was also Professor Shi vji 1 s suh-:iission th2,t tho Court of il.ppoal ignorocl section 27 of the Security of Enploynont ii.ct,. It provides, inter alia 9 that tho clocision of n Board s 1.mll be :final and conclusive. In his subnission, that provision nolws section 4(1) of tho Fernnnont Labour Tribunal clofuncto 1Hth rosi)ect 9 I do not 11[;TOO with the learned counsolo Section 27 of tho Security of Ebplo_yi:1ont deals with a situation where an onployoe has been disr.1issecl, which wns not tho caso in the Pallang.yo case. Section 27 (1)(a) roads in part as follows: ''Tho decision of tho Minister on c;,., roforonco to hir.1 u.ncler·soction 26, o,ne,1 subject to ruw clocision on 2, ref oronce to t: .e Minister tl-:. cro- 0 fror.1, the decision of a Bonxe,1 on a roforonco to it uncler this Part o • " • 4 o ., o oa , (a) Shall be final and conclusive; and \ (b) VGOoOoooo~ooooooooo (c) Section 26 of tho Security of Enploynont L.ot 9 ns I nontionou. 02.rlior 9 is on suomary clis□issal)whercby tho n,egrioved onployoo whoso disnissal has boon confi:rued by a Doard nny refer tho i:mttor to tho :Minister oi'ter givine four- teen clays' notice. In ny view, tho Court of ii.ppoal clicl not lmvo to consiclor section 27 of tho Socuri ty of Enployuont :~ct in tho Pallmvzyo case because. that was irrolovo.at. T!10 Court of AlJl)oal did not thoroforo iQ1oro section 27 as su1:uittecl by Professor Shivji. I havo already saicl t:rn.t I o,croo t21c:;.t tho Pornanont Labour Tribunal LcJG deals with collocti vo clisputos while tho 8ecuri ty of Ebploynont fl.ct clonls with individual uisputos arisinc; out of clocisions made. IIowovor, I do not 0£,TOC that tho Court of J.prJoal in tho Palln.nr;;y-o cnso in forc;etfulnoss failed ~o coraply with tho notion of collectivonoss~ In tho Pallnne;v:o caso tho Court of Appoal consiclorod both t]10 L.cts L10ntionocl C1.bovo ancl clearly hold thc:'-t nn ·-· ,. -·-t," -- aggriovod onployoo even u.nclor the Porr.12,nont Labour Tribunal J.ct oust rofor tho dispu-co to a Consilintion Boe.rel wi tllin fourteen c,ln,ys ns proviclod in Section 40A of tho Socuri ty of Er,1ploy,-,10nt ,...ct~ Tho.:c is condition prccoclont. Whore cm D{;'[;Tiovocl eoployoo docs ;.1ot refer tho dispute to tho Concilio..tion Booxd/within tho poriod spocifiocl, t:1011 t!10 Porr.mnont Lnbour 'lTibunal s:12.ll 1 not have jurisdiction to hear tho dispute., I'b.2.t a1,plios whothor it is an incli viclual dispute unclor tho ·Socuri ty of E.:1ploynont -·~ct or a colloctivo dispute unclor t:10 Labour Tri bunC\.l _\.ct. ri:2.mt was what tho Court of Lppoc,l scicl in t:i.10 £.allc.J.V;YO casoo Tho Tribtmal wo.,s bound to follow thnt decision. Tho Cov..rt of lippcal consi:lorocl tho rolovant provisions of the two .::..cts and cane to tlw,t docisiono Section 40£,. of th~.. Secui~i ty of fil:iploynent l~ct\ ariplios in so far a.s linitation of notions is concornocl in disputes under tho Pornanont La~)ou.r 1:ri bunal . ..-:..c ...v" Tho rolovant decision of tho Court of l~Pl)enl in tho Pc-,llo..rgyo, case wns not c;i vcn in ic;norc1nco or forcotfu.J.noss of in- consistent statutory provisions of tho law as subr.1ittocl. Tho Tribumtl wns thorcforo bound by t!.12,t clocision ancl C(Lli·to properly, in r.1y view, rofusoc7. to hear tho clisputo by tho applicnn:tsc. This a1iplic2,tion is clisnissoclo W,. J.,. Jyffi.INA JUDGE Dar cs Snlno.1:1 1G Juno, 19G7 Professor Shi vji for tho .:ipplicnnts Rutagatinn for tho first Respondent Mrs. Ndosi for tho second ilGsponclont \ Prof. Shivji g I nsk for lonvo to e,:;_,i,cal to the Court of iJ.ppoalo Order: Lcnvo to n1;poal to tho Cou:rt of Appo21 N.Jo MAINll. JUJJGE 10 Juno 1907