The
applicants in this matter sought to register an arbitral award relating to them
in terms of section 98(14) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:06].
The
applicants had been awarded two different awards on different dates. The
first award, dated 2 June 2006, provided as follows:-
“Award
(1)
The employees are reinstated without any loss of pay and benefits from the date
of dismissal.
(2)
The parties to negotiate damages within 21 days as an alternative to
reinstatement if continued employment is not possible.
(3) Parties
to refer the matter to the arbitrator if negotiation of damages proves elusive
for quantification of damages.”
The
second award, dated 27 September 2010, reads as follows:-
“Award
The
arbitrator will award that the employees should be paid their back pay without
any loss of pay and benefits from February 2009, the time forex started, to the
3rd September, the date of the hearing for quantification of
damages. Furthermore, the employer must pay 12 months damages in the lieu
(sic) of
reinstatement. The issue of prescription does not arise as the judgment
made by the arbitrator is still in force and there was no interim order staying
the award.”
The
applicants were not satisfied with what they were awarded by the
arbitrator. Their belief was that they were entitled to much more than was
awarded by the arbitrator.
Further,
the quantification done by the arbitrator lacked details. The arbitrator should
have done the calculation and arrived at a specified amount which he would then
pronounce. The award, as it stands, is incomplete and is not
registerable. More must be done either before an arbitrator or the Labour
Court for proper quantification of what was awarded by the arbitrator prior to
the award being registered as an order of this court in terms of section 98(14)
of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01].
The
applicants sought to move that this court should take it upon itself to deal,
at first instance, with what the arbitrator had not done.
This
court cannot do what is specifically prohibited by law. The Labour Act outlaws
that in section 89(6) which provides that:
“(6)
No court, other than the Labour Court, shall have jurisdiction in the first
instance to hear and determine any application, appeal or matter referred to in
subsection (1).”
In
the result, the application is hereby dismissed with costs.
