f£fXBLtC OF UOAXDA T1E REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
lijtered nt the
*-rul Post Office for
"■T T H J Published
-r>l. XCVIII No. 11 25th February, 2005 Price: Shs. 1000
CONTENTS Page 26th April 2002 this Court confirmed that in view of the
-|ie Industrial Court of Uganda—Notice............... 53-55 order issued by the High Court the dispute was still in this
lie Companies Act—Notice...................................... 55 court and the parties had to be given an opportunity to be
fie Trade Marks Act— Registration of applications 56 heard particularly on the "correct basis of awarding the
dvertisements ............................................................ 57-58 retrenched workers’ package" as ordered by the High Court.
''atutory Instruments Consequently, in line with the said order given to this court
2o. 10—The External Trade (Importation Licence) (No. 2) to resist its decision, the Claimants through M/S Emesu and
Company Advocates filed in this court an application for a
date to be fixed to dispose of matters outstanding in
2o. 11—The External Trade (Importation Licence) (No. 3) Industrial Dispute Cause No. 1 of 1992.
. Order, 2005.
Jo. 12—The External Trade (Importation Licence) (No. 4) Mr. Emesu in his written submission told court that the
Order, 2005. correct basis of awarding retrenchment package to the 264
Ic/s workers as directed by the High Court would require this
Jo. 2—The Finance Act, 2005. court to apply clause 17 concerning redundancy and clause
Jo. 3—The Income Tax (Amendment) Act, 2005. 18 which gives the method and the items for severance pay
<o. 4—The Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2005. to the workers retrenched. He further submitted that the
court was under a duty to look beyond clause 18 of the union
Agreement of 1992 and apply other clauses that entitle a
general Notice No. 55 of 2005.
retrenched worker to receive additional terminal benefits.
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF UGANDA These include the:
TRADE DISPUTE CAUSE NO. 1/92 (i) Wages/salary in lieu of termination notice,
(iiy leave pay and leave allowances
NATIONAL UNION OF CLERICAL, ■ (iii) transport allowance and salary arrears.
COMMERCIAL AND TECHNICAL—CLAIMANTS
EMPLOYEES Mr. Emesu asked court to look at the report of the Auditors
of the Respondent M/S Ernest and Young in respect of what
COFFEE MARKETING BOARD LTD—RESPONDENT was paid to each employee at the time of termination of
’ANEL employment. That the said report showed that the amount
4R. ALEXANDER B.N WAIBALE—President which was paid to each of the 264 workers by the
4S. RHONA NADDAMBA—Empoyers' Representative Respondent as severance pay was much less than what they
were legally entitled to be paid if the correct formula was
-4S. TUUNDE MARY—Workers' Representative
used. Mr. Emesu referred to clause 18(a) to 18(c) of the
dR. LEANDER KOMAKEC—Independent Member Union Agreement of 1992.
Court was further referred to the Employment Act Cap. 219
)n the 27th of November 1996 Justice J. H. Ntabgoba the Sec I which interprets the meaning of wages to include
Vincipal Judge (as he then was) allowed an application filed allowances in addition to basic salary. The letter written by
n high court by the respondent under misc application No. 66 the Board Secretary dated 28th November 1995 also takes
if 1996 which sought for orders of certiorari and prohibition into consideration the inclusion of various allowances when
igainst this court's award made on 31st August 1995 in Trade effecting severance pay to retrenched employees in
dispute No. 1/92. The ruling went in favour of the respondent. accordance with the Collective Union Agreement.
' he Order extracted there from was signed by both parties and
he registrar of the High Court on the 12th day of March 2002. Court took note of the formula used in settlement of
fhe order contained the following: severance pay in the case of John Lwanga and 3 others VS
Coffee Marketing Board Ltd H.C.C.S No 807/96. In this
. An order of certiorari doth issue to quash the award of the case the respondent consented to pay severance pay to
Industrial Court made in favour of the retrenched staff of unionized employees using gross monthly pay inclusive of
the Coffee Marketing Board on the 31 st August 1995. basic salary and all other allowances.
*. That the case be remitted to the Industrial Court to
Mr. Emesu for the claimants further submitted that apart
follow the correct basis of awarding the retrenched
workers' package. from the payment under clause 18(a) to (c) the claimants
were entitled to various payments, namely:
J. The Respondents pay the costs of this application.
(a) Payment in lieu of Notice of termination under clause
n a letter dated 8th May 2002 addressed to counsel for the 3(a) and 3(b) of the Union Agreement of 1992 as
“espondent in reply to his of ref 1550 TMK 318/95 dated modified by Sec. 25(3) of the Employment Act.