By MAYA NTANDA-
THREE miners at Chambishi Copper Smelter (CCS) have sued the company for alleged wrongful dismissal.
Chrispin Kaunda, Robby Bwalya and Chrispin Waluka, have sued CCS for unlawful dismissal after the company allegedly accused the trio of failing to obey an instruction to submit a report on their involvement in theft of copper blisters.
The trio stated in a statement of claim in the Kitwe High Court that they were falsely accused by the  defendants of having stolen the comodity on October 12, 2009 at CCS premises and were handed over to police.
The plaintiffs explained that CCS, with police initiated criminal prosecutions against them but on December 11, 2009 they were acquitted by the courts of law for lack of evidence.
After being acquitted, the plaintiffs reported for work and management requested them to submit reports concerning their involvement in the theft case despite the court disposing off the matter.
The three indicated to management to shade more light on the purpose of statements being requested as all the information which the company wanted was within its peculiar knowledge.
The plaintiffs stated that CCS resolved that the workers had failed to obey a lawful instruction, charged them accordingly and later summarily dismissed them from employment.
They noted that the dismissals were backdated to October 13, 2009 during which time the matter was still pending in court.
The plaintiffs contended that the defendant’s conduct of backdating the dismissals to a date before the alleged offence of failing to obey a lawful instruction was committed before the matter was disposed off, was indicative of the defendants vindictiveness.
“There was no justification whatsoever for the defendants to unlawfully dismiss the plaintiffs, by the reason of the foregoing, the plaintiffs have suffered damages,” they said.
The plaintiffs stated that the defendant’s failure, neglect or refusal to pay the plaintiffs their terminal benefits, salary and leave days for the period worked for was against the rules of justice.
They said dismissals were in total conflict with provisions of the defendant’s disciplinary code which stipulated the principle of disciplinary action and the prescribed penalty for such offences.
But in defence, the company stated that the dismissal for unauthorised removal of company property was in line with the provisions of the disciplinary code.
The matter comes up on July 3 this year before Judge Dominic Sichinga.