-55-
204(15) On June 13, 1996 thirty workers who had been dismissed filed an amparo
for legal protection in order that they be reinstated to their jobs. On June 6, 1997
the Sala Especializada de Derecho Público (Chamber Specializing in Public Law)
rendered a judgment wherein it annulled the dismissals effected by the Municipalidad
de Lima Metropolitana (Metropolitan Municipality of Lima))” and ordered that “the
[30] plaintiffs be reinstated to their usual jobs and that back payment of lost wages
and other benefits be made.” 55 The above mentioned Chamber based its decision on
the grounds that
[…] the bases of such assessment procedure were not published; therefore, the
applicants did not know that such violation would be a ground for dismissal provided for
in the bases contained in Attachment 01 to Mayoral Resolution No. 033-A-96 […;]
Decree-Law No. 26093 […] does not establish the failure to sit for such assessment as
another ground of dismissal […;] the dismissal ordered in the instant case was not an
act set forth in the above Law, whereby it is deemed to be an unfair dismissal […].
204(16) The judgment rendered by the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court)
on April 9, 1999 found “Mayoral Resolutions No. 461, 501, 523, 511, 448, 398 and
436 of March 27, 1996 [ordering the applicants’ dismissal] to be non-applicable to
the [7] plaintiffs” and ordered that the Municipality “reinstate them to the jobs they
had or to similar ones, without back payment of lost wages and other benefits.”56
204(17) The judgment rendered by the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court)
on August 20, 1999 found “Mayoral Resolutions No. 421, 416, 395, 563, 485, 545,
423, 465, 447, 437, 531, 539, 391, 471, 396, 527, 541, 420, 406, 388, 513, 407,
400, 499, 434, 530, 458, 417, 498, 441, 399, 456 and 507 of March 27, 1996
[ordering the dismissal of the plaintiffs] to be non-applicable to the [33] plaintiffs”
and ordered that the Municipality “reinstate them to the jobs they had or to similar
ones, without back payment of lost wages and other benefits.”57
204(18) The Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) based its decision to find
the appeals for legal protection [protection of constitutional guarantees and rights]
admissible in the judgments it rendered on April 9 and August 20, 1999 (supra
paras. 204(16) and 204(17)) on the grounds that even though the Bases of the
Assessment Program provided that those workers “who decided not ” to sit for the
scheduled assessment would be declared redundant, the fact that such assessment
was not carried out ruled out the grounds for their dismissal on the grounds of
redundancy.58
55
Cf. Writ of amparo filed on June 13, 1996 (case file on preliminary comments and possible
reparations and legal costs, volume XI, folio 3763); and judgment rendered by the Chamber Specializing
in Public Law on June 6, 1997 (case file with appendixes to the application brief, appendix 19, folio 1094).
56
Cf. Judgment rendered by the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) on April 9, 1999
(case file with appendixes to the application brief, appendix 21, folio 1322).
57
Cf. Judgment rendered by the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) on August 20, 1999
(case file with appendixes to the application brief, appendix 20, folio 1275).
58
Cf. Judgments rendered by the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) on April 9 and
August 20, 1999 (case file with appendixes to the application brief, appendixes 21 and 20, folios 1322 and
1275).