Agric Ministry employees go for assets
Mpho Mokwape | Monday March 14, 2022 06:00
They want the assets to be sold by public auction to recover the sum of P2,270,000 owed to them following a court order by Justice Gaopalelwe Ketlogetswe of Lobatse High Court. The writ of execution comes after the ministry on January 13, 2022 abandoned an appeal it had filed before the Court of Appeal. “The appellants herein intend to withdraw and hereby withdraw his or her appeal against the respondents and tenders to pay wasted costs occasioned by the appeal,” read the ministry’s papers.
The ministry was ordered to pay the employees over P2million following a failed promotions and progressions on time. The workers had taken government to court complaining among other things about salary arrears, scarce skills allowance arrears, leave days and overtime allowance arrears. Justice Ketlogetswe handed the judgements on June 19, 2020 before the ministry tried to appeal. Before the judge, seven employees had appeared before court arguing that the ministry had failed to backdate their promotions and progressions and in so doing that had violated their labour rights.
They also sought to have the ministry pay their arrears in respect to salaries, scarce skills allowance, overtime allowance and leave days. In Justice Ketlogetswe’s judgement, the government was ordered to pay the sum of P2,270,000 as presented of the same arrears in Justice Lekorwe's verdict. They were also ordered to have complied with the order within 60 days of the judgement. In his reasons, the judge said the plaintiffs were asking the court to hold that they are entitled to be treated equitably and similarly as the other employees who have already been paid without demur. “The conclusion I have arrived at is that the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs they seek in their entirety,” he said.
He explained that in so far as the other employees similarly circumstanced as themselves have been paid their arrears salaries and other arrear benefits and that also on the principle of parity of treatment are entitled to be paid.
The judge pointed out that the state’s defence argument seemed to be that payments to others were made after the decision in the Moeti Temano case. He said what was important was whether or not the decision to agree to pay other employees was made in spite of existence of the decision of Temano noting that the agreement to pay the other employees was made a year after the decision. “I do not think it can reasonably be argued that decision can have, if at all, different interpretational outcomes in relation to persons similarly circumstanced.
The defendants’ argument in this regard is therefore without merit and it is rejected,” he said. Justice Ketlogetswe further said the ministry in delaying in the promotions in the manner it did was in breach of the employees’ contracts of employment or better still in breach of the Directive No.6, which binds them. “The directive was clear and the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs they are seeking. The issue of unavailability of either posts or funds is just a blatant stratagem by the defendants to avoid consequences of their tardiness,” he said.
He explained that the directive revealed that not government curtailed the period within which an employee was to be considered for progression/promotion but also obviated the need for periodic requisition of posts and funds. He said it seemed to have been the position that was all along held by the higher echelons of public service as evidenced by other cases that came before court.