44 Judgment No. CCZ 2/18 Constitutional Application No. CCZ 86/15 retrospective application of the financial obligation on them under the transitional provision, is that the length of service designates value independent of remunerated services. Section 65(1) of the Constitution is not applicable. It is not the conduct of the employer or the employee which is under attack. It is the law itself, the validity of which is under attack because it retrospectively imposed the financial obligation on employers who terminated their employees’ contracts on notice to pay them minimum retrenchment packages calculated by reference to length of service. The Legislature, as an arm of Government responsible for making laws, is clearly not envisaged by the Act as part of those who can commit an unfair labour practice. Unfair labour practice is conduct which is prohibited by law. It can only be committed by the employer in respect of the employee and his or her interests or by the employee in respect of the employer and his or her or its interests. Payment of a severance package based on length of service to an employee whose contract was terminated for reasons other than misconduct cannot constitute an unfair labour practice within the meaning of s 65(1) of the Constitution. The applicants’ allegation is clearly without legal basis. There was no violation of the right to fair labour practices. COMPULSORY DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY The applicants alleged that the transitional provision infringes their right to property enshrined in s 71(2) and protected under s 71(3) of the Constitution. Sections 71(2) and 71(3) provide as follows: