-63-
204(44) In its judgments of July 14, 1998, March 31, 1999 and December 22, 1999,
the Sala Corporativa Transitoria Especializada en Derecho Público (Corporate
Provisional Chamber Specializing in Public Law) held “the Mayoral Resolutions [which
ordered their dismissals] and any ensuing administrative actions inapplicable to the
[7] plaintiffs, and ordered their reinstatement to their jobs with the same rights and
benefits they had prior to dismissal.” In addition, the aforementioned judgment of
March 31, 1999 ordered “back payment of lost wages and other benefits they had
failed to receive from the date of issuance of the […] resolution.” As regards the
grounds for its decisions, the Sala Corporativa Transitoria Especializada en Derecho
Público (Corporate Provisional Chamber Specializing in Public Law) stated that the
Comisión Permanente de Procesos Administrativos Disciplinarios (Committee on
Administrative Disciplinary Procedures) failed to issue an pronouncement on the
administrative proceedings instituted by the Municipality of Lima against the plaintiffs
for having observed the strike called by the SITRAMUN, as set forth in Article 166 of
the Reglamento de la Ley de Carrera Administrativa y de Remuneraciones del Sector
Público (Regulations Implementing the Civil Service Career and Public Sector
Compensation Law). In the aforementioned Judgment of March 31, 1999, the Court
further stated that even though the Municipality declared “the illegality of the strike
scheduled for April 1, 1996, it is no less true that it was published on April 6, 1996,
that is, after the beginning of the strike. Therefore, the strike was perfectly viable
and legal.”85
204(45) In its judgments of April 3, 1998, May 13, 1998, October 16, 1998 and
August 20, 1999, the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) held “the Mayoral
Resolutions [which ordered their dismissals] inapplicable to the [33] plaintiffs, and
ordered the Municipalidad Metropolitana de Lima (Metropolitan Municipality of Lima)
to reinstate plaintiffs to their jobs or similar positions, without back pay for lost
wages.” As regards the grounds for its decisions, the Tribunal Constitucional
(Constitutional Court) pointed out that the Comisión Permanente de Procesos
Administrativos Disciplinarios (Committee on Administrative Disciplinary Procedures)
failed to deliver an opinion in the administrative proceedings instituted by the
Municipality of Lima against the plaintiffs for having observed the strike called by the
SITRAMUN, as it should have pursuant to Article 162 and 166 of the Reglamento de
la Ley de Carrera Administrativa y de Remuneraciones del Sector Público
(Regulations Implementing the Civil Service Career and Public Sector Compensation
Law). In the aforementioned Judgment of October 16, 1998, the Tribunal
Constitucional (Constitutional Court) further added that, in the case of the plaintiff,
the report of the Comisión Permanente de Procesos Administrativos Disciplinarios
(Committee on Administrative Disciplinary Procedures) submitted in the proceeding
was issued after the adoption of the Mayoral Resolution ordering the plaintiff’s
dismissal.86
and appendix 32, folio 1702); and judgments of the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) of April
3, 1998, May 13, 1998, October 16, 1998, August 20, 1999 and November 11, 1998 (file of appendixes to
the application, appendixes 25, 27, 28, 29 and 30, folios 1482, 1523, 1546, 1594, 1665).
85
Cf. Judgments rendered by the Sala Corporativa Transitoria Especializada en Derecho Público
(Corporate Provisional Chamber Specializing in Public Law) on July 14, 1998, December 22, 1999 and
March 31, 1999 (file of appendixes to the application, appendix 26, folio 1493; appendix 31, folio 1686;
and appendix 32, folio 1702).
86
Cf. Judgments of the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) of April 3, 1998, May 13,
1998, October 16, 1998, August 20, 1999 (file of appendixes to the application, appendix 25, folio 1482;
appendix 27, folio 1523; appendix 28, folio 1546; and appendix 29, folio 1594).