IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF SWAZILAND
HELD AT MBABANE CASE NO. 419/10
In the matter between:
BONISILE DLADLA 1ST APPLICANT
SINDISIWE MAFU 2ND APPLICANT
VIP PROTECTION SERVICES RESPONDENT
N. NKONYANE :JUDGE
DAN MANGO : MEMBER
GILBERT NDZINISA : MEMBER
FOR APPLICANTS : E. DLAMINI
FOR RESPONDENT : A. MMARI
RULING ON POINTS OF LAW
 The Applicants have filed an application for determination of an unresolved dispute in terms of Section 85(2) of the Industrial Relations Act of 2000 as amended.
 The Applicants are both former employees of the Respondent. The Applicants were terminated by the Respondent on 04th June 2009 on allegations that their contracts of employment had elapsed. The Respondent in its Reply stated that the Applicants were terminated because their positions at Shoprite were redundant as Shoprite no longer required their services. The Respondent also raised two points of law namely that:
“1.1st and 2nd Applicants both signed a termination of employment schedule in full and final settlement of all and any claims, including that of compensation arising from their employment and its termination, therefore there were no claims left outstanding. The termination of employment schedules are annexed hereto and marked “B1” and “B2” respectively. In the circumstances the Applicants expressly waived any future claims against the Respondent and the court may not entertain Applicants’ application.
Clause 8.2 of the contract of employment signed by both the 1st and 2nd Applicant reads as follows:-
“If the client requests my removal for poor work performance etc VIP Protection Services will make every effort to find new employment for me. However failure to find new employment will result in my contract with VIP Protection Services terminated effectively a month after my removal. The contracts of employment are attached and marked “A1” and “A2” respectively.”
 The evidence before the court indeed shows that the Applicants on their termination they each signed a “Termination of Employment – Schedule.” This evidence is not in dispute as the Applicants did not file Replications to dispute it. Paragraph 2 of these documents states that:-
“I confirm and accept that this represents a full and final settlement of all and any claims, including that of compensation arising from my employment and its termination, and there are therefore no claims outstanding.”
Among other itemized payments, the Applicants were also paid a sum of money referred to as ex-gratia settlement payment. For Bonsile Dladla it was E2,002.21 and for Sindisiwe Mafu it was E3,111.94. There was no suggestion before the court that the Applicants were tricked or were acting under duress when they accepted their ex-gratia payments in full and final settlement.
See: Mduduzi Nhleko v. Swazi Oxygen, Case
 The Applicants’ representative argued before the court that the package paid to the Applicants did not contain an ex-gratia payment or additional benefits which might constitute a compromise. This argument was clearly misguided. It was also based on an incorrect interpretation or understanding of this court’s judgement to which the court was referred to by the Applicants’ representative being the case of Boniface Dlamini v. Swaziland United Bakeries (Pty) Ltd, case No. 200/2002. In paragraph 26 of that judgement the court stated that:-
“The Respondent’s counsel conceded in argument that all the benefits listed in the retrenchment package exhibit R9, including the pro rata bonus, are benefits to which all retrenched employees are entitled in terms of the Recognition Agreement. The Retrenchment Package contains no ex-gratia or additional benefits which might constitute a quid pro quo for the Applicant compromising his rights by abandoning all further claims he might have against the Respondent.”
 In the present case there was no evidence of a Recognition Agreement in which there is a list of benefits to which a retrenched employee is entitled. Secondly, in the present case the packages of the Applicants did in fact contain an ex-gratia payment. There is therefore, in this case, no question of unfair labour practice that arises the Applicants having been offered an ex-gratia payment and having accepted such payment in full and final settlement of all and any claims. The case of Boniface Dlamini (supra) is also distinguishable from the present case because in that case the evidence which was accepted by the court showed that the Respondent did agree to waive the condition and that the Applicant could accept the payment without compromising his further claims. There was no such evidence in the present case.
 The court will accordingly uphold this point of law raised by the Respondent. There will be no need for the court to deal with the second point of law raised by the Respondent as the upholding of the 1st point of law has the effect of dismissal of the application. The court will accordingly make the following order:
1. The 1st point of law raised is upheld and the Applicants’ application is dismissed.
2. We make no order as to costs.
The members agree.
JUDGE OF THE INDUSTRIAL COURT