IN THE MATTER BETWEEN DANIEL BOTWE vs. K-NET LIMITED [2013]DLNLC6248

Date	2013-07-03
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2013]DLNLC6248

[2013]DLNLC6248
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B050">IN THE MATTER BETWEEN DANIEL BOTWE<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B050">vs.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B050">K-NET LIMITED<o:p></o:p>[NLC]<o:p></o:p>NLC/C-640/07/013/6&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 3RD JULY, 2013<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

</div>FOR: COMMISSION<o:p></o:p>D. K. Y.
VORMAWOR DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

</div>On 2nd November, 2007, Mr.
Daniel Botwe, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, lodged a complaint at the
National Labour Commission against his former employers, Messrs K-Net Ltd, for
unfair termination and sought the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p>a) Payment of his SSNIT contribution<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;b) Accumulated leave to be
committed to cash<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;c) Compensation for unfair
termination<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;d) Payment in lieu of
notice.<o:p></o:p>The case of
Petitioner:<o:p></o:p>He was employed by K-Net Ltd. in 2001 but was unfairly terminated.
He added that he had worked for five years without going on leave prior to the
termination of his appointment. Again he said the company had not paid his
social security contributions.<o:p></o:p>The case of
K-net Ltd. - The Respondent:<o:p></o:p>In a written response to the petition, Respondent stated that
Petitioner was "summary dismissed and therefore did not create any legal
obligation to give one month's notice or pay to the complainant, any salary in
lieu of notice."<o:p></o:p>Respondent however admitted
that due to liquidity problems it was facing, payment of SSNIT contribution of
its employees were in arrears.<o:p></o:p>The parties were invited to
the Commission first to facilitate an amicable settlement but when that failed
the matter was heard by the full Commission.<o:p></o:p>The Respondent however failed to appear before the Commission on
two occasions, i.e. 31st May, 2013 and 3d July, 2013.<o:p></o:p>The Commission relied on Regulation 33 (2) of L.I. 1822 heard the
case and determined the matter.<o:p></o:p>Discussion:<o:p></o:p>It was clear from the written submission of Respondent that
Petitioner's appointment was terminated and that he was not dismissed as
claimed by Respondent in their written response to the Commission.<o:p></o:p>The letter of termination dated September 28, 2007 read as
follows:<o:p></o:p>"Re Notice of Termination.<o:p></o:p>We regret to inform you that
the company no longer needs your services with effect from October 1, 2007. We
thank you for working with us and wish you well in your future endeavors."<o:p></o:p>THE DECISION:<o:p></o:p>The Commission is s</main>