19860910 TZHC Dar es Salaam

Lt<.,,,-~ IIT TH.G DU-:i: CCJ3'.J1 <)? T..·.~;.z;:,1:l :.T D.:'.:( :~GS S:'.'.::' ·::' ... __.....-._....,r- .. ~· ... '-'"'"•~,,. ..--- ....... Mrsc:.·:r,LJJiJEOUS C:i.VIL c;.us.~ ~~o. 49 OF 1982 HT THE i:/11.T'.l:'ER OP TEI: J'J:DICL~i.:i..:·: ·: 'D --~-'~-':r/. Ci,'.L'ION OF 11,WS OimLLi':CB CI,11 • -<-55 nm IN THE HJ,TTER OF '.i:iIG '.~n:_r.,}:) Drn:.:~u1.r::; :S:'}L' .'.c:clJ TMJZ ..'. L~ HUl.BOu"'RS ;,umom TY .............. i,PPLICJJ-JT Mill S. HUTitJUJ:JJ1.H!J. ••••••••••••••••••••• , ••• , •• IIBSPOi-JDEHT ~·_r;·:~:-.·:er 8!.1'1 G,d-;s>.f_!.t. The npplic(~nt TClnzcinia Ibrbours Luthorit;;· :Ls 1Jo....:lcinc for an order of oertiorc:ri to quC'.sh the mvr.rd :x:,:e by t~1e Peri:..tetno:, t ic. bour Tri bunnl dnted 4t.1-i June, 1982 in Tr2<le DisJutc lJo. 14 ...>:i' 1981. 1 The f::-,cts nre set out in the cfi'ickvi t SYio:rn by J ercr.1iah No.enan Msa!l6i., the applicant's Director of Mnni1ov1er Dovelopr.:i.e:1t .J.i1.L: i1clr.~inistrn tion. The respondent Sw0etbcrt Retc.ju11:1ri.: ,K:s a .j_',loyccl by tl:c npplicant as a Senior Clerical Officer. On Stl.1. FG brunry, ·1 900 ::.is e.·.1~1loynen t was ten.1ir.c tec.1 nnc.1 he wns 1:;iven full ternin,'ll 1Je~1efits in t:!Ccordance with section 37 of the Securi t:, El'..1:i.;loyL10nt /,ct,· 1 ~54. .'. i::.;rieved by the te:rDinntion the rcs;>onc1cnt took the Detter to tb.o Sec:c otnr;r Ge,10r.,l of JUWJ;.TA. A rJ.eeting ;held wos,,.. ~-inn:--:{,;er of the ap~1l:i.cc.nt . "between the Gener~:l -,• · nml n representn t1.ve · frcn J(n.·.r.i.1/J. in which the ::tPJlicent :Ji;J.ck to :.u.n ;_;i.::c1s ~md refused to reinsk,te the rl..)s:.;ionC.ent. JUWATA tr.. en cclc.1. rcsr.:ecl a lc·cter to the Ca.rr.1issioner for Labour decL:rint; c tr~,dc c1is::u·Gc ii1 nccorclcnce with section 4 of the PcnJ.f.'.nent k1bour '.I'ribuncl .',ct, 1967. In response to tho lcttvr fro:.~ the C:J·:::·.is,Jio::.1er for Lnbour the cp1)licnnt wrote to the sr:il1 Cc ·x.:is:::ioner, c:i..-ti::.1c the provision of the Security of lhploync~·1t Let, whereunC:'.er the recporn.1c::.1t 1 s er:1:;_)loy,::ient wns teir.1inqtau. At the sonc tiIJ.c the cpplicant Lx\_;eC. its objection to the c.1eclcrc:tion of the trocle dispute by JU':r.·,1~~ .:-_,1d co:,1tondecl that the law applico.blc wci,s the Security of B.:1ploy,:10;,1t ·:,ct, ~)esj_Ji to tho.t objection the Co:-r.·,j.ssioner for Lnbour )rococLLud to r: 1,poi:,.1t :: concilintor in accordance with the: provisions of tl·;e Pcr..:.1::-ment :Labour l':ri'.x::1.~l ;.ct, but tho snicl concilicitor fc1ilcL-:. to brin5 tho n:_-i_ttcr to rm end. .·.t the end of August, 1981 the Minister for Labour referred the <lispu·te to t~ie Pen.1c1ncn➔,; Lnbour ~ribunnl for henrinc nnd detenJ.inc:tion. ',7hen the c.1isi')ute c1:.no Uj_J for :1ecr:i.nt:,; t~"e c1:1plicc~1t resisted by rois'ing n prel:ir1in::1ry objection; suh:.ii ttine tl1at -~~:c 'lribunnl had no jurischction to cntertc1in the c1is;:iutc. The objcct:i.on wns overruled end the dispute wc:s honrd :::ind deteruine:C.. l.s :i.:1clic.:-.tcC. c;; the ouset, an awe.rd wns r:12dc on 4th June, 1982 to the effect font the respondent be reinstnted forthwith. - 2 - I accept the contention tllnt the lo.rr t:wt fJ.. •Ll<: :::.we been applied to the dispute is the Security of ll:1plo~"":.c·tt ;"_ct 7 1964. Mr Lnli:hn hc:is nreuec1 thct the Security of J!bploy, :c_:>.t ~·_ct r:.1id not. apply beccuse, he snid, the responclent wc,s not rm e.,pl.,yo\J '.ri thin the neaning·C'.scrioecl to the ten, 11 a.·.1.:_:·J_,,yce;, i:1 t~:e ~'.i.:~lo;yT,ent Ordinnnce, Cop.366. .lith respect, th::,t w~:s Cl b:-,.re ::,.ssortiun,1.fr. Ldd1a cli<.l not 1 show how the res:;onc1ent fell outside the. t Jofli..-ii ti0n. I nlso sustain the :,rcu.1ent tho.t the Per-~C\i1ent kibour Tribunnl hncl no juriscLction unc101° the lc.w to entertain the clio:._>i..l to ~ncl cdjudicn te thereon ~,s it chcl. It rn:iy oe noteu. thee t when t: :e '.i:ri bunnl overruled the prellJ.1in2ry objection to jurisc.iction the j;_~dcpo::t of the Court of Chvil i,ppeo.l liro.9 of 1982, h:::icl not beon delivcrecl. On the authortllty of thc.t c.:ccision it should now be snid, wit~:0L1t any hesitation whatever, thc.t there wc.s no occ::.sion t'--' oJcrc:te the pro:risions of the Pe:i:uonent Labour Tribunal ji.ct r.ncl rcf0r ·c~1c Jis:;uto to t~'.e '.i'ribunnl, As the court observed in _;t.'"']..).:1A1YO' s c:.se, the jurisdictiolt of -c:::.e Tribunal over such Ll.'.'.-cters is conferrcc7. ;yy s.)ct: 1_;;n 16(G) of Le Pe:tr'-::inent Labour Tri bunnl :i.c t, w!1ich st:: tes th:, t the Tribunal l: ~s jurisc1ic tion to hear nnd deternine an;y· t:i;-~~l~...di~.:~ rcferreJ -to it Lmcler the provisions of that Act. ;\ncl in the juclce:._;_ent of t~1~- t co...i.rt, by nuc·i:;: ons 3 and 4 of the lwt, tl:.e essence of n trade c.1isJ111.te involves nore tban one en;,loyee; it is one betneen an ei.1vloycr :--.11r.7. two or no:cc of his/:Lts a..:.ployees. Where the dispute is between ::-.n er.:plo;ycr nm: :-': sj_nc;le a:.ployec, as wns the cnse here, it is not n tr[l(le C.is~mte w:i. t:-iin the nou1:i:1_:; of the ii.ct, unless it is taken up b-y :lon tehnlf' of, ufo<or c:..::~:loyeeo, v::a::..c:.:,. di<} not obtain in the present c,.se. With due :rcs)ect to !.1r. k:khr.,, it ::_s :iot true that the question of the '.:.1riburi.'.'.l havi:1c; no jurisC.ictioi-1. tu clcol vii th the natter hns not been roisecl in the f.!i)j;1lic{"ltion. In uy vicrr thi'.t point is clearly ;iJ.1plied in pnr::-,r:;rG~)h 2. In .'.:tny vrc:ut, I wuulcl t..::~:.11~ thnt this is the kind of flf\W thet should be adverkC: to by o court P.U.9 _notu. In the finnl result I find thnt this vrrts c. clear cnse of a false or vr.ro;_1c·as ...:un~)tion of jurisdiction on the p::-,.1·t of ·foe Pemonent Lnbour Tri bun.'"\l• It w::1s o void exercise. I quo.sh tLe et':!::rcl onc1 crnnt costs to ~ the applicant. Delivej:-ed in Court. Ur. N'gc.sf\ln for tl1e Applico.nt. Mr. He/'-s~la for Lo.khn for tho Dnr .- es Snlo.rtr2 10th Septenber, 1986