Judgment No. SC 26/18 4 Civil Appeal No. SC 164/16 that the respondents were being underpaid for the period in question. In addition he held that the appellant’s conduct in this regard was criminal which rendered it liable for prosecution. As a consequence, he ordered that each of the respondents be paid US$2 390.00 as back-pay. He also ordered that the appellant should normalise the compensation system for the respondents. The appellant was aggrieved and appealed against the Arbitral award to the Labour Court. In essence, the grounds of appeal were that the arbitrator erred in finding that the appellant committed an unfair labour practice by implementing a performance-based incentive bonus scheme. It also argued that the Arbitrator exceeded his terms of reference when he ordered it to normalise its payment scheme. The Labour Court upheld the finding by the arbitrator that the appellant had committed an unfair labour practice by implementing a performance-based bonus scheme. On the issue relating to the Arbitrator exceeding his terms of reference, the court a quo found that it was inconceivable that the appellant would raise such a ground of appeal when it was common cause that it had, subsequent to the arbitration proceedings, started a process towards normalising its remuneration system. In the result, the appeal was dismissed in its entirety. Aggrieved by the decision, the appellant, with the leave of this Court, has appealed on the following grounds: