The applicant was an employee of the respondent as a lecturer. His services were allegedly terminated due to his involvement with political activities as a leader of the political party at the District level. He referred the matter to the Commission of Mediation and Arbitration (CMA) where the decision was made in favour of the respondent. Aggrieved by the decision, he filed this application for revision under the provisions of section 91(l)(a) (2)(b)(c) and section 94(4)(a)(b) and 94(l)(b)(i) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act.
The applicant argued that he was unfairly dismissed since the reasons for his termination were based on segregation on political grounds. He sought an order for payments of subsistence and difference of salary after the termination of his employment.
The court found that the applicant was not unfairly terminated. Once the respondent had discovered that the applicant was a leader in a political party, the respondent had asked the applicant to verify or denounce his position as a teacher and he had decided to resign. The applicant had thus terminated his own employment.
The application was therefore dismissed.
