By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

Prof. Shivji urged that when the matters was referred to the Tribunal for inquiry andsubsequently the Minister made a decision there was still in existence a Trade Disputes.He submitted that a proper construction of the Secretary General’s letter would netpermit the conclusion that the Trade Dispute had been settled. Further Juwata does nothave to be involved in every Trade Dispute. Juwata has to report to the LabourCommisioner a Trade Dispute, and so be involved, only if the action is under section 4(1) of the Act. If he contends, as in the present case, the employees act under section 9(A), Juwata does not have to reportand does not have to be involved: It is not a necessaryparty. Section 4 (1) of the JUWATA Act 1979 indeed provides:“JUWATA shall be the sole body representative of all employees within the UnitedRepublic.”Prof. Shivji submitted that this merely meant that there cannot be any other Trade Unionin Tanzania.The appellants’ advocate also addressed us on what he said was the real meaning ofSection 6 (l) (g) of the Security of Employment Act, cap. 574. He supported the view ofthe Tribunal that the intended consultation should have been held before declaring theredundancies. He in other words asked us to fault the view that there were in this case noimpending redundancies before the time the Council of Ministers approved therecommendation put to them by the Board of Director.Prof. Shivji also reiterated his earlier submission before the learned judge that the HighCourt should have refrained from exercising its discretion in favour of the respondentbecause of their delay of over two months after the award before applying for the order ofcertiorari.Mr. Tarimo submitted that Lubuva, J. acted quite properly in granting the order the orderof certiorari and that his decision should not be General’s letter to found the view that theTrade Dispute had been settled. The appellants had accepted their terminal dues and left.They cannot latter be heard to say that they were unhappy. JUWATA had been involvedand settled the dispute which no longer therefore existed. The employees had consentedto the settlement, as evidence by the letter from the Secretary General. Mr. Tarimomaintained that JUAWATA is a necessary part to a Trade Dispute, even if theproceedings are under section 94.117