mmc ltd vs norbert fastus masebe 2023 tzhc 22748 3 november 2023

UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

JUDICIARY

HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA

MOROGORO DISTRICT REGISTRY

ATMOROGORO CONSOLIDATED LABOUR REVISION NO.3 and 4 OF 2023 (Originating from CMA/MOR/80/2021 of Commission for Mediation and Arbitration for Morogoro)

MMC LTD APPLICANT

VERSUS

NORBET FASTUS MASEBE RESPONDENT

JUDGEMENT Date of last Order: 5/10/2023 Date of Judgement on: 03/11/2023 BEFORE: G. P MALATA. J This is a Judgement in respect of the Consolidated Labour Revision No. 3 and 4 of 2023 between the parties herein. Page 1 of 30 In nutshell, the parties herein had employer and employee relationship under the Employment and Labour Relations Act, Cap. 366 R. E.

2019. The applicant was engaged in the position of Finance Manager (Exhibit DDI refers). Sometimes, in 2021 due to economic difficulties the respondent decided to retrench some of the employees, the applicant was among the affected employees. This is voiced by the retrenchment notice (exhibit DD3). In the said notice, the respondent explained reasons for retrenchment that, financial difficulties due to high operational costs. The financial statement depicts the same (Exhibit DD2). The applicant was informed on the ongoing exercise and invited at the consultative meeting where he raised no objection save for the statement that he be paid retrenchment packages (Exhibit DD4 and DD5). In view thereof, the respondent proceeded to pay the applicant a retrenchment packages totaling TZS 36, 273,400/= Aggrieved thereof, the applicant lodged a complaint with CMA claiming for a total of TZS 172,280,949 arising from; Page 2 of 30 1. Payment of unpaid salaries of three (3) months totaling TZS 25,581,428, 2. Payment of salary for eleven (11) days of September, 2021 to the tune of TZS 3,748,663.

3. Payment of salary for nineteen (19) days for year 2021 TZS 5,111,813 4. Payment of compensation for fourteen (14) days totaling to TZS 123,046,664 5. Payment of gratuity of TZS 1,356,210 6. Payment of salary for thirteen (13) days as per the contract of employment totaling TZS 8,839,100 7. Payment of leave for thirteen (13) days of TZS 2,597,071 To have the answers of the above claims, CMA raised the following issues that; one, whether the act by the respondent to end the applicant's employment amounted to termination or retrenchment, two, validity of the reasons for ending the applicant's employment, three, compliance of the procedures for termination or retrenchment and four, any other reliefs. Page 3 of 30 Having heard both parties, the CMA was satisfied that, the respondent's act amounted to termination by restructuring and not retrenchment. As result it noted that, the termination procedures were not complied with, thence awarded compensation of six months'salary totaling of TZS 53,162, 856/= Dissatisfied thereof, both applicant and respondent preferred revision to this court. While the applicant filed Application for Revision No. 4 of 2023, the respondent filed Application for Revision No. 3 of 2023. On 10^^ August, 2023 when this matter came for hearing, Ms. Patricial Pius, learned advocate for the applicant informed this court that,there are two revisions by the same

parties emanating from same proceedings. She thus prayed for consolidation, on the other hand Mr. Joseph Asenga learned counsel for respondent raised no objection. The two cases were thus consolidated as Consolidated Labor Revision Nos. 3 and 4 of 2023. The parties are at discontentment on the issues that; 1. Whether the Arbitrator correctly held that, the act of MCC Ltd amounted to restructuring and not a retrenchment. Page 4 of 30 2. Whether the Arbitrator correctly held that, the respondent [Norbert Fastus Masebe] was entitled to alternative position, 3. Whether there were justifiable reasons for retrenchment, 4. Whether the retrenchment dues paid to the respondent were in accordance with contract and labour laws, 5. Whether the respondent is entitled to any other statutory compensation. On the hearing date both parties appeared represented, Mr. Joseph Asenga, learned counsel appeared for the applicant while Ms. Patricia Pius Mbosa, learned advocates appeared for the respondent. Ms. Patricia submitted that, the applicant seeks to revise and set aside the award by CMA before Hon. Haji (Arbitrator) delivered on 8^^ February 2023 in labour dispute CMA/80/2021 before the parties herein. On the first issue She submitted that, on whether the act by the applicant was retrenchment or restructuring is gathered from the facts. This court was referred to rule 23(1) of the Employment

and Labour Relations (Code of Good Practice Rules) 2007. Ms. Patricia submitted that, the reason the Page 5 of 30 applicant gave reasons for ending the respondent's employment among other employees which was retrenchment due to economic difficulties faced the applicant same. This is reflected in pages 11-13 of the award, also on page 15 of the financial statement of the applicant which was tendered as an exhibit and the respondent was given during termination process. It was submitted that, such economic difficulties resulted into retrenchment. Ms. Patricia submitted that, the respondent's employment was not terminated under rule 23(2)(c) of the code as the circumstances do not sound similar with restructuring. As such, it was stated that, the applicant just retrenched the respondent thus compliance with Rule 23(1) of the code. That, the applicant issued a letter with intention to retrench the respondent and also the parties had consultative meetings in which the respondent did not object the retrenchment as per page 14 of the award instead demanded for the compensation on the retrenchment. As there was no objection, the applicant proceeded to prepare retrenchment dues and paid the respondent. A total of TZS 36,273,400/= was paid as undeniably and captured on page 15 of the award. Page 6 of 30 That, under the law and contract of employment the respondent is entitled to be paid

the following; - Severance pay, repatriation costs, certificate of service, one-month notice pay in view of retrenchment and any contractual benefits under the contract which were thirteen cheque, NBA training allowance, airtime arrears, subscription, salary areas of two months and leave pay of four days which were all included in the amount paid by the applicant. All the above were paid thus making a total amount of TZS 36,273,400/= Ms. Patricia conclude that, the award of compensation of six months' salary to the respondent is unfounded and basically as the act of the applicant was retrenchment and not restructuring. Finally, she prayed to this court to set aside the award and order that, the applicant's act amounted to retrenchment and not restructuring and that the respondent has no further claims rooted from retrenchment process. In reply Mr. Asenga submitted on the first issue that, though under exhibit DD6 it is clear that, the applicant's act did not amount to retrenchment but restructuring which led to deletion of the respondent's position. Page 7 of 30 As to the second issue, Mr. Asenga submitted that rule 23(3) of the Empioyment and Labour Relations (Code of Good Practice Rules) 2007 was not adhered to thus affecting the security of tenure. Appiicant did not provide for alternative position to the respondent. Further, the respondent did not agree.with the

retrenchment. As to the third issue of reasons for retrenchment, Mr. Asenga submitted that, there was no proof of economic hardship. In support he cited the case of Ringo R. Mosses vs. Luck Spin Ltd Revision No. 544/2019 HC Labour Division at page 3 which requires, among others, provision of sufficient reasons for retrenchment. Coming to the fourth issue on whether the retrenchment dues were paid to the respondent in accordance with contractual and labour laws, Mr. Asenga referred this court to the case of Magnus K Laurean vs. TBL Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2018 CAT Par es salaam at page 28. He submitted that, the salary arrears even if not specificaiiy claimed but so long as they are statutory rights can be ordered and be paid by this court. That he was not paid the salary arrears of June, July, and August, 2021 plus eleven Page 8 of 30 days. As to the 13^^ cheque was also not paid and the respondent is entitled to TZS 8,836,100. Mr. Asenga submitted on last issue whether the respondent is entitled to any statutory compensation that, since the alternative remedy/position during restructuring was not given, then compensation of six months' salaries awarded by CMA be maintained. By way of rejoinder, Ms. Patricia submitted that, on the issue of alternative possible position that, since consultative meeting and mediation was made and the respondent accepted the retrenchment then the

alternative position if it was restructuring is none starter as the respondent did request for payment of dues as per page 14 of the award. As to proof of economic hardship faced by the applicant, Ms. Patricia submitted that, there was proof through financial statement which was tendered by the applicant and respondent and the same was not challenged. That, the respondent is not entitled to terminal benefits as there was no claim of unfair termination. She further added that the respondent raised claim of insufficient payment and not unfair termination, then claims of unfair termination is uncalled for and cannot arise in the circumstances. Page 9 of 30 That marked the end of the parties' submissions for and against the appiication. This paves way to the court to consider and give decisions on issues of controversy. T 0 start with, this being a claim raised against each other, either party bears a legal duty to prove existence of what he wants this court to believe in and give judgement in favour thereof. As such, parties are liable to discharge their duties under section 110,112 and 115 of the evidence Act, Cap.6 R. E. 2022. section 110 provides that; "(1) Whoever desires any court to give judgement as to any iegai V »• right or iiabiiity dependent on the existence offacts which he asserts mustprove that those facts exist (2) When a person is bound to prove the existence ofany

fact, it is said that the burden ofproofiies on thatperson" Section 112 provides that; Page 10 of 30 "The burden ofproofas to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the court to believe In Its existence^ unless It Is provided by law that the proofofthatfactshall He on any other person Section 115 depict that, Tn dvH proceedings when any fact Is especially within the knowledge ofany person, the burden ofproving that factIs upon him" It is worth noting that, termination on operational requirements may take different forms. The common reasons fall under; one, retrenchment, two, restructuring, three, winding up of a company and four, bankruptcy. These are out of disciplinary and incapacity of an employee. As a general rule, the circumstances that might legitimately form the basis of termination of employee based on operational requirements includes; first, Economic needs that relate to the financial management of the enterprises; second, technological need that refer to the introduction of new technology which affects work relationship either by making existing jobs redundant or by requiring employee to adapt to the new technology or a consequential restructuring of the workplace third. Structural needs that arises from restructuring of business as a result of a number of business Page 11 of 30 related causes such as the merger of businesses, a change in the nature

of the business, more effective ways of working, a transfer of the business or part of the business or cessation of business due to any other reason. Starting with the first issue, whether the Arbitrator correctly held that, the applicant's act amounted to restructuring and not a retrenchment. Indeed, under our laws, issues of termination based on operational requirements, retrenchment inclusive is governed by Rule 23 of the Employment and Labour Relations [Code of Good Practice Rules] 2007 among others. The Rule provides for all procedures to be adopted in the exercise of taking action to end employment on operation reasons. The Rule reads read that; (1) Termination for operationsi requirements (commoniy known as retrenchment) means a termination of employment arising from the operationai requirement is defined in the Act as a requirement based on the economic, technpiogicai, structurai or simiiar needs ofthe empioyer" Page 12 of30 (2)As a genera!rule the circumstances that might legitimately form the basis ofa termination are - (a)economic needs that relate to the financial management of the enterprise: (b) technological needs that refer to the introduction of new technology which affects work relationships either by making existing jobs redundant or by requiring employees to adapt to the new technology or a consequential restructuring ofthe workplace: (c) structural needs

that arise from restructuring of the business as a result ofa number of businesses related 'causes such as the merger ofbusinesses, a change in the nature ofthe business, more effective ways of working, a transfer of the business or part ofthe business. (3) The courts shall scrutinize a termination based on operational requirements carefully In order to ensure that the employer has considered all possible alternatives to termination before the termination Is effected. Page 13 of 30 (4) The obligations placed on an employer are both procedural and substantive. The purpose of the consultation required by Section 38 of the Act is to permit the parties, in the form of a joint probiem-soiving' exercise, to reach agreement on - (a) the reasons for the intended retrenchment (i.e. the need to retrench); (b) any measures to avoid or minimise the intended retrenchment such as transfer to other jobs, eariy retirement, voluntary retrenchmentpackages, layoffetc; (c) criteria for selecting the employees for termination, such as iast-in-first-out (LIFO), subject to the need to retain key jobs, experience or special skiiis, affirmative action and qualifications. (d)the timing ofthe retrenchments; (e) severance pay and other conditions on which terminations take piace; and (e)steps to avoid the adverse effects of the terminations such as time offto seek work. Page 14 of 30 (5) The requirement

which the employer is required to adhere to undersubsection(1)ofsection 38. (6) In order for it to be effective, the consuitation process shaii commence as soon as the empioyer contempiates a reduction of the workforce through retrenchment so that possibie aiternatives can be expiored. The process shaii aiiow the union to- (a)meet and report to empioyees; (b)meet with the empioyer; and (c)request, receive and consider aii the reievant information to enabie the trade union to inform itseif of the reievant facts for the purpose of reaching agreement with the empioyer on possibie aiternative soiutions. (7) The more urgent the need by the business to respond to the factors giving rise to any contempiated termination of employment, the more truncated the consuitation process may be. Urgency may not, however, be induced by the failure to commence the process as soon as a reduction ofthe workforce was iikeiy. On the other hand, the parties who are required to Page 15 of 30 reach agreement shall meet, as soon and as frequently, as may be practicable during the process (8) Section 38(2) of the Act provides that Into agreement Is reached between the parties, the. matter shall be referred to mediation by the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration. An agreement reached between the employer and a trade union recognized as the exclusive bargaining agent. Is binding on all employees within

the bargaining unitin terms ofSection 71(3) (c)ofthe Act. (9) The employer may not Implement the retrenchment within 30 days of the referral to mediation, unless otherwise agreed between the parties. Once this period has passed, the employer may proceed with the retrenchment unilaterally. The fairness of the employer's actions may be disputed and referred to arbitration, once the mediation falls Having' gone through the above Rule, it clear that, under Rule 23 (3)(4) (5) of the said Code of Practice and section 38 of the Empioyment and Labour Relations Act, this court is, that, it has; one, duty to look on the compliance of obligations placed on an employer are both procedural and Page 16 of 30 substantive, two, to scrutinize and ensure that the employer has considered all possible alternatives to termination before the termination is effected and three, compliance of Section 38 of the ELRA provides that; (1)In any termination for operationai requirements (retrenchment), the empioyer shaii compiy with the foiiowing principies, that is to say, he shaii- (a) give notice of any intention to retrench as soon as it is contempiated; (b)disciose aii reievant information on the intended retrenchment for the purpose ofproper consuitation; (c)consuit prior to retrenchment or redundancy on - (i)the reasonsfor the intended retrenchment; (ii) any measures to avoid or minimize the

intended retrenchment; (Hi) the method ofseiection ofthe empioyees to be retrenched' (iv) the timing ofthe retrenchments; and (v)severance pay in respect ofthe retrenchments, (d)give the notice, make the disciosure and consuit, in terms ofthis subsection, with- Page 17 of 30 (i)any trade union recognized in terms ofsection 67; (ii) any registered trade union which members in the workpiace not represented by a recognized trade union; (Hi) any empioyees not represented by a recognized or registered trade union. (2) Where in the consuitations held in terms ofsub-section (1) no agreement is reached between the parties, the matter shaii be referred to mediation under Part VIII ofthis Act (3) Where the mediation has failed, the dispute shaii be referred for arbitration which shaii be concluded within thirty days during which period no retrenchment shaii take effect and, where the empioyees are dissatisfied with the award and are desirous to proceed with revision to the Labour Court under section 91(2), the employer may proceed with their retrenchment It is trite law that, employer has to comply with the above procedure. In response to the issue at hand, this court is satisfied that, what the applicant did amounted to retrenchment of which the employer was Page 18 of 30 therefore required to abide to above stated procedures. The question is whether the applicant compiled with. From

the evidence on record, it is undisputed that; one, the applicant gave reasons for retrenchment that, there was economic difficulties on the applicant's party, two, the difficulties is gathered from the financial statement, three, the respondent did not challenge that, applicant was facing economic hardship, four, applicant resorted to retrenchment as mitigating way, five, applicant initiated retrenchment process by issuing notice to retrenchment to the employees, respondent inclusive, six, respondent was served with such notice of retrenchment, seven, consultative meetings were convened involving the respondent, eight, (• respondent accepted retrenchment and unequivocally offered to be paid retrenchment packages/dues, nine, no further discussion on the issue as the respondent just wanted to be paid retrenchment dues and leave the office, ten, the reasons for retrenchment were not at issue, eieven, applicant continued to prepare and paid the respondent retrenchment dues totaling TZS 36,273,400, twelve, respondent received retrenchment dues. The above facts are evidenced by various exhibits tendered by the applicant at the CMA including DDI to DD6. They ail confirm that, the Page 19 of 30 applicant's act amounted to retrenchment. The grounds for retrenchment are also echoed in the financial statements. Reading Rule 23 and section 38 cited herein above, it is clear that,

the process was a retrenchment and the governing provisions of law were substantially complied with. Further, the applicant executed respondent's option on payment of retrenchment packages, thus payment of TZS. 36,273,400. Since, the respondent is the one who raise dissatisfaction on the applicant's act, he was duty bound to prove it including that, the applicant failed to comply with any laid down procedures, thus affecting his substantive rights. It. should be noted however that, not all non-compliances can be accorded weight unless it affects the complainant's basic rights. This position is echoed by Article 107A (2)(e) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania which provides that; (2)Katika kutoa uamuzi wa mashauri ya madai najinai kwa kuzingatia sheria, Mahakama zitafuata kanuni zifuatazo^ yaani- Page 20 of 30 (a) kutenda haki kwa wote bHa ya kujali hali ya mtu kijamii au kiuchumi; (b) kutochelewesha haki biia sababu ya kimsingi; (c) kutoa fidia ipasayo kwa watu wanaoathirika kutokana na makosa ya watu wengine, na kwa mujibu wa sheria mahususiiiiyotungwa na Bunge; (d) kukuza na kuendeieza usuiuhishi baina ya wanaohusika katika migogoro. (e)Kutenda haki biia kufungwa kupita kiasi na masharti ya kiufundi yanayoweza kukwamisha haki kutendeka This court has gathered nothing from the respondent's testimonies proving that, the applicant's acts amounted to

restructuring. In view thereof, this court confirms that, the applicant's act amounted to retrenchment. The respondent's claims before CMA accrued from allegations, inter alia that, the termination amounted to restructuring. It is evident that, such claims are unfounded. Page 21 of 30 On the second issue,on whether the Arbitrator correctly held that, the respondent [Norbert Fastus Masebe] was entitled to alternative position. This issue largely depended on the answer to the first issue. As long as, it has been found that, the applicant' act amounted to retrenchment and not restructuring then no question of alternative position. Additionally, through consultative meetings and mediation the respondent accepted retrenchment as reflected on page 14 of the award. As to question of Whether there were justifiable reasons for retrenchment. This was the third issue. It is established principle that for the termination of employment to be considered fairly, it should be based on valid reason followed by a fair procedure. In other words, there must be substantive and procedural fairness in terminating employment. That is reflected under section 37 (2) of the Employment and Labour Relation Act, No. 6 of 2004 which states that: - (2) A termination of empioyment by an empioyer is unfair if the empioyer faiis to prove- (a)that the reason for the termination is vaiid; Page 22 of 30 (b)that the

reason is a fair reason- (i) reiated to the empioyee's conduct, capacity or compatibiiity; or (ii) based on the operationai requirements of the empioyer, and (c) that the empioyment was terminated in accordance with a fair procedure. The obligations placed on the employer before termination are both procedural and substantive ones. Section 38(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act, Cap 366 R. E. 2019 provides that, any termination on operationai grounds, the empioyer has to comply with the foilowing procedures; one, give notice of intention to retrench as soon as it is contemplated; two, disclose all relevant information on the reasons of intended retrenchment, three, make consultation prior to retrenchment or redundancy, four, entering into agreement on execution of retrenchment process including but not limited to payment of retrenchment package. Page 23 of 30 In the present application, the applicant issued a notice of intention to retrench with reason being financiai difficulties due to ongoing operation deiays (Exhibit DD3). Additionaiiy, that there were high operation costs, financiai statement was tendered before the CMA to prove it. (Exhibit DD2). At the consultative meeting the respondent did not object the retrenchment as evidenced by minutes of the meeting tendered before the CMA as (Exhibit DD5). Further, PWl is quoted through Exhibit DD4 to have stated

that; ''Retrenchment is normal thing to happen as iong as employer has realized the need to reduce employees, I do not have any problem with it as long as I will be paid all the things, I claim against the company. am very positive In the process of retrenchment as long as I will get paid of all the things such; salaries, contractual allowances, severance allowance pay, repatriation cost to Tanga, all NSSF. " That, it was the dissatisfaction on the retrenchment package that triggered reference to CMA and not restructuring. Page 24 of 30 In the light of the above, the applicant gave reason which in law is considered valid with evidence to support her reason (financial statement). Therefpre, there was justifiable reasons for retrenchment. On the fourth issue, on whether the retrenchment dues were paid to the respondent in accordance with contract and labour laws. It is evident that, on termination of employment for whatever reason, the employer is required to pay an employee all terminal benefits, this includes; one, any remuneration for work done before termination; two, any annual outstanding leave pay due, three, payment in view of notice of termination,; four, payment of severance due if legally tenable, five, payment of transport allowance to the place of recruitment and payment of other contractual rights, if any. Ms. Patricia stated that, the applicant was paid the

respondent, retrenchment dues to the tune of TZS 36,273,40/= encompassing; severance , pay TZS 1,315,000/=, salary arrears TZS 11,503,200/=, one month in lieu of notice 5,751,600/=, 13^^ check TZS 5,751,6000/=, NBA trainings TZS 5,000,000/=, airtime allowance TZS 400,000/=, subscription TZS 3,000,000/=, on paid leave of four days TZS 1,052,000/= repatriation Page 25 of 30 costs TZS 2,500,000/=. All the above were paid and accepted by the respondent on 11/9/2021. Meanwhile the respondent claimed that/ he was not paid his salary arrears of June, Jully, August, 2021 and 11 days and that annexure DD2 supported his claims. As the law so requires, he who alleges must prove the allegations. Sections 110, 112 and 115 of the Law of Evidence Act [Cap 6 R.E, 2002] put the burden of proof to the respondent. However, in labour law, the employer has as well obligation to prove that, he has discharged legal obligations under the law. Those two sediions infer that, if there is infringement of any legal right(s), by another person, the one who has that legal right should seek assistance of court to enforce against the wrong doer. Therefore, the burden of proof lies on a person alleging it. In support of his claim Respondent relies on exhibit DD2 which was the letter of complaint. I am aware of the standard of proof in civil case that is on the balance of probability. The complaint letter by the

respondent did not in itself provide a proof of arrears. Respondent had the duty to prove by production of evidence. This was not done. Page 26 of 30 This court was unable to gather any tangible evidence proving for unpaid claims as raised by the respondent. As such, it was difficulty for the court to award something without evidence proving the same. In that regard, I share similar sentiments with CMA and desist from awarding whole or part of the claimed amount totaling of TZS 172, 280, 949 for want of evidence. In that regard, I hereby prevaricate from granting the claimed amount by the respondent for want of evidence proving it. Coming to the last issue, on whether the respondent is entitled to any statutory compensation, it is evident that, section 40 of the Employment and Labour Relation Act, provides that, if it is proven that, there is unfair termination then, the Arbitrator/ Judge has to award remedies as per section 40 of the ELRA. However, that is not the case at hand as applicant has successfully established that, the termination was fair and all dues were paid accordingly. CMA commented that, the all procedure for termination were substantially complied with. Then there is no justification for penalizing the applicant as nothing can yield something. Nothing can be born from nothing. Page 27 of 30 In the CMA'award at page 15 it is stated that; ''Hivyo basi kwa kuwa

taratibu zote za msingi ziUzingatiwa kwa kiwango toshelevu ingawa Tume inaamini kuwa namna mbadala ya kumpatia mfanyakazi huyu nafasi nyingine (alternative position)ingetoa ufumbuzipasipo kumiazimisha mwajiri kuiipa fedha" This court found that, based on the evidence on record, the arbitrator was satisfied that the termination was fair and in accordance with the law. I uphold it. The comment by CMA that the respondent ought to have given alternative position is unfounded as in retrenchment there no such remedy. Since, it is proven that, the applicant's act was procedurally and legally in line with the governing law, and that no unfair terminatipn, then, the awarded compensation of TZS 53,162,856 being additional amount to the benefits already paid to the respondent for the loss of employment is unfounded for lack of legal justification. The awarded amount was due to applicant's failure to offer the respondent for an alternative position. As This court has already ruled that there was no restructuring but retrenchment thus no requirement for an offer for alternative position to the respondent. Page 28 of 30 As the applicant's acts were found to be in line with the law and no outstanding claims due, then awarding compensation of TZS 53, 162, 856 for no wrong committed by applicant herein is tantamount to unjust enrichment on the respondent's party. Further, it will a total

confusion in the sense that, while we have cleared the applicant on one hand that he complied with law and paid all dues to the respondent, on the other hand we condemning the applicant to pay such compensation for no wrong established. This will be unjust enrichment on the respondent's side. Having said all what I wanted to say, I hereby rule that, the applicant's act amounted to retrenchment and that the respondent herein was dully paid all retrenchment dues. Besides, the awarded compensation of TZS 53,162,856 which is equivalent to six months' salaries is hereby set aside for want of justification. Consequently, the applicant's (MMC Limited) revision is allowed while the respondent's revision is rejected in total and the awarded compensation of TZS 53,162,856 is hereby set aside.

IT IS SO ORDERED Page 29 of 30 DATED at MOROGORO this November, 2023. 0/? c 1. Cd

Z UJ X •w G. P. MALATA

JUDGE 03/11/2023 JUDGEMENT delivered at MOROGORO in chambers this 3"^^ November, 2023 in the presence of Mr. Joseph Asenga learned counsel for the respondent and also holding brief Ms. Patricia Mbosa for the Applicant. OF o 4/ G G. P MALATA X a'irA'fiM' \'k JUDGE 03/11/2023 Page 30 of 30