In Re: Judicature and Application of Laws Cap.453 Section (2) and the Law Reform; In Re: Trade Dispute Between Jumuiya Ya Wafanyakazi Wa Tanzania (Juwata) on Behalf of 224 Works as Members (Misc. Civil Cause No 70 of 1990) [1991] TZHC 2119 (5 July 1991)

, ,,, , .. ,,, _,, '""-'' - - •"• '""C'g ·~~· . ",• - IN Tfu: HIGH COUHT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALA.AM \Jj<(0t~ " BAHAl'I.J. MISC. CIVIL CAUSE NO. 70 OF !990 .IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICATURE AND APPLICATION OF LAWS CAP.453 SECTION (2) AND THE LAW REFORM AND IN THE i\1.ATTER OF TRADE DISPUTE BETWEEN JUMUIYA YA WAFANYAKAZI WA TANZANIA (JUWATA) ON BEHALF OF 224 WORKS AS i-/iEi'll.13ERS AND 'MANAGEMENT or KILTEX · RULING . ... This is application for an order of certiorari to remove to th~ High, Court the decisio.n of the Permanent Labour Tribunal in Permanent La.bour Tribunal Case N.u. 15 of -1907/00 and annul it. ,,; l 'i In his submission, Mr .Muccadam learned eounse·l for the applicants, · . .; argued that. the· applicants were 224 workers ·of KILTEX who worked in dif{erent capacities. They wre laid off and oompelled to proceed on (I . leave. Whers they returned. for work they were again told to go home for another six months. The matter was reported to JUWATA branch of KILTEX. There was dispute between the workers- and the Management which was referred to different authori tie_s whi('h ended up in the dispute bei_ng·: referred to te Minister. The Ministl:lr referred the matter terr.'Euit. ·:' Labour lribunal for adjudicati-on. Instead of returning the matter to the Labour Com11issioner who in law is the only persoI_l.who can prefer a dispuie to PLT, the Minister did so hims.elf., Mr. Muccadara said that the relevant ltters were annexed to the affidavits but no such letters were _actueJ.ly annexed. Mr Muccadam referred this court. to the case of .Management of, Hotel .Africana v JUVIATA -: eivil Appeal no 30 of 1986 C - • • • • ~ I (CA), where the Court of Appeal.held that if the Minister had no power to refer the dispute to PLT then PLT.had nothing to-entertain. He prayed .that· the decision of PLT should be quashed and the d.is·pute sent back -to the Minist.er who would refe~- the same to the Labour-Commissioner who in turn will send it• to PLT. Mr Mucoadam also cited section 9A of Act No amended • r f. by Act No.· 1.8 of 19779

2 In reply·, Mr Kashumbugu~ learned counsel for the respondent, was in agreement with the submission of Mr Muccadam·. Since it is conceded by Mr Ka§humbugu that the fact~ as presented by r. Muccadam £re correct what is to be determined here is only the point of law~ In view of the decision in Management of Hvtel Africana v. JUWA91L_ci ted above·, I agree with Mr Muccadam that the decision of the Tribunal (PLT) should be quashed because there was nothing before PLT which PLT could entertain~ The decision of PLT in this case is quashed~ Since the atter was wrongly referred to the PLT by the Minisef, - I order that it be taken back to the Commissioner for Labour in rder for him to refEr it to the PLT after.obtaining approval from the Minister as required by section 9A of the Aot._There will be no orde as to costs since the parties had agreed to/ons.ent order without costs (.--··. ---------, __ . . -- ::t s -- .·· 5/7/91 Delivered to Mr Muccadam for applicant. Mr. Ka;humbugu absent.