BY JAMES MUTASA

Jinyi Enterprise Private Limited has withdrawn an application for review it had filed at the Labour Court in a matter against Ignatious Nyambira an employee they had dismissed.

The Gweru based company which produces ferrochrome had dismissed Nyambira on allegations of unsatisfactory work performance as it claimed that he was employed as a security guard had failed to carry out work to the required standard resulting in the company losing 6 Front End loader batteries.

Jinyi’s notice of withdrawal of Case No. LCMD47/24 at the Labour Court reads; “Take notice that the Applicant hereby withdraws its application for review filed under Case No. LCMD47/24.”

Upon realizing that Jinyi had flouted the disciplinary procedures stated by the Ferrochrome code of conduct, the union, NUMAIZ appealed against Nyambira’s dismissal at the Appeals Committee of the NEC for the Ferrochrome arguing that the employer had deliberately ignored the dictates of the code of conduct in disciplining the employee, for the employer had used one Chatindo in all the 3 committees which are Investigating, Disciplinary Hearing and Company Appeals Committees.

“It is observed that there was a deliberate flaunting of the Code of Conduct where the Respondent was made aware that it is an anomaly for one to appear in the Investigation Committee then sit in the Disciplinary Hearing and also appear in the Appeals Committee,” reads part of the NEC Appeals Committee’ determination.

“It is therefore determined that the Appellant be reinstated on his post without loss of salary,” ruled the NEC Appeals Committee.

Aggrieved by the NEC Appeals Committee’s determination, Jinyi Enterprises approached the Labour Court seeking a review of the NEC’s decision which ordered Nyambira’s reinstatement with full benefits.

Prior to the withdrawal of the case at the Labour Court, Ni Shujia, a manager at Jinyi had told the Court in her founding affidavit that; “there was gross irregularity in the NEC Appeals Committee in dealing with the Respondent’s appeal whereas it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the matter as a determination had been made by the Appellant’s Disciplinary Committee as well as Internal Appeals Committee.”