Salaries and wages

This is an appeal by the Appellant against the whole of the Judgment of the Industrial Relations Court sitting at Ndola, whereby that Court dismissed the Appellant’s search, against the Respondent, for a variety of reliefs. For its part, the Respondent not only resisted the Appellant’s claims but mounted a counter-claim of its own for a liquidate sum of US$ 12, 363.74 against the Appellant on account of mobile telephone bills which had arisen in respect of a mobile phone number which the Respondent had availed to the Appellant in accordance with the former’s policy but, which had been the subject of proven misuse by the Appellant’s spouse.

It was contended by Counsel for the Appellant in ground one that the Lower Court erred when, against the weight of evidence, it held against the Appellant. In response Counsel for the Respondent contended that Ground one revolved around the lower Court’s findings of fact and that those findings of fact were adequately supported by the evidence which had been deployed before the Court below.

Counsel for the Appellant contended that the allegations which had formed the basis of the Appellant’s dismissal did not warrant such a punishment; especially that he was an expatriate who was not even afforded an opportunity to exculpate himself. The Respondent’s Counsel contended that the admitted and proven allegations against the Appellant clearly pointed to dishonest conduct on the part of the Appellant. According to the Respondent’s Counsel, the Respondent was entitled to treat the Appellant’s conduct as constituting a serious breach of trust, particularly in light of the seniority of the management position which the Appellant held in the company.

The Respondent’s counter-claim was not challenged in the Court below.

Held:

1. The court cannot possibly disturb a Judgement which is founded on findings which are well and amply supported by the evidence on record.
2. Failure to comply with any laid down disciplinary procedure would not negative the dismissal of an employee who has committed an offence for which such dismissal represents the appropriate punishment.
3. Facts pleaded that are not challenged should and are deemed accepted.