The High Court allowed a labour revision, set aside a CMA award, and held that the respondent was fairly terminated both substantively and procedurally.
The collective agreement, having been implemented for years and not rectified or challenged by the applicant, is valid and enforceable; denying the respondent payment under it while others were paid constitutes discrimination.
The court held that the employer failed to prove a valid reason for termination as the permit for water connection was issued by the site engineer and not shown to be forged. The disciplinary process was tainted by bias and discrimination, as only the applicant was disciplined while the site engineer was not. Procedural fairness was not fully observed, and the employer did not consistently apply disciplinary rules. The termination was therefore both substantively and procedurally unfair.