Cassation File No. 192951
Tahsas 28, 2013 E.C.
Judges: Birhanu Amenew
Teshome Shiferaw
Habtamu ErkYihun
Birhanu Mengistu
Netsanet Tegegn
Applicant: Oromia Water Works Construction Enterprise
Respondents: 1. Benti Imru 11. Abdisa Adisu
2. Benti Itefa 12. Geremew Mosisa
3. Asebe Temesgen 13. Adane Tadesse
4. Kiflu Zewde 14. Debela Kejela Banti Imru,
5. Gudeta Jebesa 15. Negera Aera Representatives Banti
6. Mamo Kumera 16. Tefera Teera Itefa and
7. Adugna Kumera 17. Tamene Itana Asebe Temesgen appeared
8. Misganaw Wedajo 18. Tesfa Dibisa
9. Fikadu Aweke 19. Belay Hundera
10. Bacha Oljira
The file was examined and the following judgment was given.
J U D G M E N T
The case concerns a labor dispute. The litigation commenced at the Oromia Region Gimbi Woreda Court, where the respondents were the plaintiffs and the applicant was the defendant. As we understand from the dispute, the respondents, in their statement of claim written and filed against the applicant on 17/03/2011 E.C., stated that they have been employed and working as security guards in the applicant’s enterprise since 2002 E.C. They alleged that since their employment, they were provided with security guard uniforms for three years from 2008 to 2010 E.C., but were not provided with uniforms for 6 years, nor were they given annual leave and overtime pay, as well as soap and tissue paper allowances for 9 years. Consequently, they requested the court to order the applicant to pay them 81,422.00 Birr each, totaling 1,547,027.50 Birr, pursuant to Articles 79(5), 75, 68(1)(d), and 67(2) of Proclamation No. 377/1996 E.C.
In its statement of defense, the applicant raised a preliminary objection, arguing that since the relationship between the respondents and the applicant is based on employment, any payment claim arising from an employment contract is barred by the statute of limitations if not claimed within 1 year under Article 162(1) of Proclamation No. 377/1996 E.C. Furthermore, under Article 162(3), claims for overtime and similar payments are barred by the statute of limitations if not claimed within 6 months. Since the respondents submitted their various payment claims after 9 years, the applicant argued that their claim is barred by the statute of limitations pursuant to Article 162(1) and (3) of Proclamation No. 377/1996 E.C. and requested its dismissal.
The Gimbi Woreda Court, which heard the case at the first instance, litigated the parties under File No. 26215 and rendered a ruling on 12/11/2011 E.C. The court reasoned that the various payments the respondents claimed were unpaid from 2002 E.C. to 2007 E.C., and since they should have filed a suit to claim these payments within the period stipulated under Article 162 of Proclamation No. 377/1996 E.C., their claim, having been brought after many years, is barred by the statute of limitations, and thus dismissed it. Aggrieved by this ruling, the respondents filed an appeal to the West Wollega Zone High Court; however, the court, under File No. 42884, dismissed it by an order given on 01/03/2012 E.C. pursuant to Article 337 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Subsequently, the respondents filed an appeal to the Oromia Region Supreme Court, which kept them going back and forth and eventually rejected their appeal, stating it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the matter. They indicated that due to this, they were unable to submit their cassation petition to the Regional Supreme Court Cassation Division within the time prescribed by law, and thus applied for permission to file an out-of-time appeal. The Division, under File No. 320815, ordered the applicant to give a reply and rendered a decision on 24/06/2012 E.C. It stated that pursuant to Article 25(2)(a) of Proclamation No. 216/2011 E.C., enacted to re-determine the jurisdiction and functions of the Oromia Regional State Courts, the Regional Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to hear appeals and give a final decision on regional matters decided by the Regional High Court. Although this Proclamation was published in the Regional Gazette on Tir 02, 2011 E.C., pursuant to Article 49(2) of the Proclamation, it came into force after a 6-month preparatory period, effective from Hamle 02, 2011 E.C. The Regional Cassation Division has jurisdiction to hear a case in cassation only when regional matters receive a final decision by the regional courts, pursuant to Article 80(3)(b) of the Federal Constitution, Article 64(4) of the Oromia Constitution, and Article 25(2)(f) of the Regional Proclamation No. 216/2011 E.C. Therefore, in the present case, since the matter has not been heard and has not received a final decision by the Regional Supreme Court Appellate Division pursuant to Article 25(2)(a) of Proclamation No. 216/2011 E.C., the respondents can submit their appeal to the Regional Supreme Court. With this reasoning, it decided that the petition was not eligible for the Cassation Division. The applicant submitted a cassation petition written on 28/02/2012 E.C. to this Division, alleging that a fundamental error of law was committed in the decision rendered by the Regional Cassation Division, the content of which is briefly as follows.
The petition submitted by the respondents to the Oromia Supreme Court stated that their time for submitting a cassation petition had lapsed pursuant to Article 327 of the Civil Procedure Code, and requested permission to submit the out-of-time petition. The court should have only examined whether or not they failed to submit their petition on time due to good cause. However, by examining and responding to a judicial relief not requested by the respondents, and accepting a petition submitted after the legally prescribed 30-day period for filing an appeal had lapsed—without the applicant having litigated on it—and deciding that the case must be adjudicated on appeal by the Regional Supreme Court, it contradicted the provisions of Article 182(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, which constitutes a fundamental error of law. Furthermore, although the Regional Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over the case under Regional Proclamation No. 216/2011 E.C., Article 49(1) of the Proclamation stipulates that cases initiated before the Proclamation was declared shall be settled in accordance with the previous Proclamation. Since the respondents filed the suit on 17/03/2011 E.C., before the Proclamation came into force, the Proclamation is not applicable to this case; hence, the decision is erroneous in this regard as well. Additionally, pursuant to Proclamation No. 377/1996 E.C. and Article 138(3) of the revised Labour Proclamation No. 1156/2011 E.C., it is stipulated that an appeal on a labor dispute decision shall be made only once, and the decision given by the appellate court shall be final. Despite this, citing Proclamation No. 216/2011 E.C., which is irrelevant to the case, and deciding that the Regional Supreme Court must hear the case on appeal for a second time is a fundamental error of law, and thus the applicant requested its reversal.
The Cassation Inquiry Bench examined the case and, noting that the dispute concerns labor affairs, ordered the case to be brought before the Cassation Bench to investigate the appropriateness of the Oromia Regional State Supreme Court Cassation Bench’s decision that the case should be heard on appeal by the Regional Supreme Court, in light of Proclamation No. 377/1996 and Proclamation No. 1156/2011. It ordered the respondents to submit their reply. The respondents submitted their reply written on 13/12/2012 E.C., arguing: Since the Cassation Bench can give an order or decision on a matter it deems the lower court should have given an opinion or decision on, pursuant to Article 182(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, the applicant’s petition claiming that a decision was given on a remedy not requested should not be accepted. The applicant’s petition stating that it was improper to grant us permission after the 30-day period for submitting a petition had lapsed has no legal basis, because it was confirmed and permitted to us that our time lapsed due to security problems created in the area and because courts were sending us back and forth claiming lack of jurisdiction for various reasons. They argued that the petition should be dismissed as no error was committed by deciding that the case should be heard on appeal by the Regional Supreme Court in accordance with the Regional Proclamation No. 216/2011. The applicant also argued by submitting a rejoinder written on 21/01/2013 E.C.
The above shows the arguments of both parties and the contents of the decisions given by the courts that heard the case. We have examined whether or not a fundamental error of law was committed in the decision given by the Regional Cassation Bench, in light of the relevant law and the issue framed by the Cassation Inquiry Bench when it decided the case warrants review by the Cassation Bench, as follows.
As we have examined, the suit instituted by the respondents against the applicant at the Woreda Court was by stating that they were not provided with security uniform, annual leave, overtime, and tissue and soap payments which they claimed were unpaid, and requesting the court to order payment. Since the dispute concerns an individual labor dispute, we have understood from the arguments of both parties that it was heard and decided by the Woreda Court and was also heard and decided on appeal by the appellate High Court. Although the respondents had submitted a second appeal to the Regional Supreme Court, it rejected them without opening a file, stating it lacked jurisdiction. In the meantime, stating that their time for submitting a petition had lapsed, the respondents applied to the Regional Cassation Bench to be allowed to submit an out-of-time petition. The copy of the decision shows that the Regional Cassation Bench rejected their petition as not qualifying for the Cassation Bench, stating that pursuant to Article 25(2)(a) of Proclamation No. 216/2011 issued to re-determine the jurisdiction and functions of the courts of the Oromia Regional State, the court with the jurisdiction to hear the case on second appeal is the Appellate Bench of the Regional Supreme Court.
As is known, pursuant to Article 55(3) of the FDRE Constitution, it can be understood that one of the main reasons why the law governing labor affairs was made to be enacted by the House of Peoples’ Representatives is the belief that it is necessary to enact a law that is uniformly applicable throughout the country, recognizing the national significance of the sector for the overall growth and development of our country by creating industrial peace when there is a law that balances the rights, interests, and obligations of employers and employees who are the actors in labor affairs. As indicated under Articles 137(1) and 138 of the Labour Proclamation No. 377/1996 enacted in this regard, an individual labor dispute is heard at the regional level under first instance jurisdiction by the Regional First Instance Court. Furthermore, Article 138(3) of the Proclamation stipulates that a party aggrieved by a decision given after an individual labor dispute is heard by a Regional First Instance Court may submit their appeal to the Labor Division of the Regional Court that hears appeals from the Regional First Instance Court within 30 days from the date the decision was given. The reason the Proclamation determined the jurisdiction of the courts in this manner, even though the matter is governed by a law originating from the Federal government, is due to the policy stance that the objective intended by the law can be better achieved if disputes related to labor affairs are heard by courts that are more accessible to both the employer and the employee. Additionally, under Article 139(2) of the same Proclamation, it is stipulated that the decision given by the appellate court shall be final. The phrase “final decision” in the provision indicates that once the case is heard and decided by the appellate court, regardless of whether the outcome of the decision is altered or not, the matter upon which the decision was given cannot be heard again on appeal. Therefore, courts adjudicating labor disputes must follow the procedural provisions stipulated in the Labour Proclamation regarding the conduct of disputes so that the Labour Proclamation can be uniformly applicable throughout the country. In particular, when regional courts apply procedural provisions set out in regional laws enacted in relation to the objective conditions of their region concerning the conduct of labor disputes, care must be taken to prevent the creation of disparities among citizens having labor disputes in various courts across the country, and to avoid negative consequences that would frustrate the objective for which the labor law was enacted at the federal level.
Returning to the case at hand, the individual labor dispute brought by the respondents was first heard and decided by the Sebeta Woreda City Court, and subsequently heard and decided on appeal by the Finfine Zuria Oromia Special Zone High Court. This shows that the dispute was heard and decided in accordance with Articles 138 and 139(1/a) of the Labour Proclamation. In this manner, since the decision rendered by the appellate court on the matter is a final decision pursuant to Article 139/2 of the Proclamation, it cannot be heard again on appeal by the Appellate Division of the Regional Supreme Court pursuant to Article 25(2/a) of Proclamation No. 216/2011, which was issued to re-determine the jurisdiction and functions of the courts of the Oromia Regional State. The special law applicable to direct labor disputes and determine the jurisdiction of courts are the procedural provisions stipulated in the Labour Proclamation. Viewed from the perspective of the objective for which the Labour Proclamation was issued, the provision stipulated under Article 25(2/a) of Proclamation No. 216/2011, issued to determine the jurisdiction of regional courts regarding regional matters, should not be applicable to labor disputes.
Therefore, the decision of the Oromia Regional State Supreme Court Cassation Division—which, while having the jurisdiction to examine the case submitted by the respondents in accordance with the appropriate law and render a decision, instead decided that the case must be heard again on appeal by the Appellate Division of the Regional Supreme Court based on Article 25(2/a) of Proclamation No. 216/2011, which is not applicable to labor disputes—is a fundamental error of law that must be corrected, as it prevents the intended objective of the labor law from being achieved and fails to follow the procedure established by this same law. Hence, we have decided the following.
D E C I S I O N
1. The decision rendered by the Oromia Regional State Supreme Court Cassation Division on 24/06/2012 E.C. under File No. 320815 is quashed in accordance with Article 348/1 of the Civil Procedure Code.
2. We have stated that once a labor dispute is heard and decided by an appellate court, the decision becomes final, and unless the final decision rendered is reviewed by a Cassation Division on the grounds of a fundamental error of law, it shall not be heard again on appeal.
3. We have remanded the case to the Oromia Regional State Supreme Court Cassation Division in accordance with Article 341/1 of the Civil Procedure Code so that it may reopen the file, examine the respondents’ petition, and render a decision based on the law.
4. It is decided that the parties shall bear their respective costs incurred in this division.
O R D E R
1. A copy of this decision shall be transmitted to the Oromia Regional State Supreme Court Cassation Division. Copies shall also be given to the parties upon their request.
2. If there is any injunction given on this file, let it be written that it is lifted.
3. The file is closed and shall be returned to the archives.
There are illegible signatures of five judges.
S/H