However there are some exemptions for family undertakings employing less than five people with regards to working hours, employment of young persons. These exemptions do not apply to termination of employment.

Art. 2 (2) LC: the LC shall not apply to: the Royal Lesotho Defence Force; the Royal Lesotho Mounted Police; or
any other disciplined force (...).
See also Act no 9 of 1997 which amended art.2(2) of the LC and excluded from the scope of the LC "National Security Service and Lesotho Prison Services".
In addition, category or class of public officers, public authority or employee may be excluded if so provided by government order. Public servants have been excluded by the Labour Court (Exemption) Order No. 22 of 1995. (CEACR, 2008)
Art. 61 (1), (2) LC: the part of the LC on termination of employment, dismissal and severance pay is not applicable to apprentices and trainees.

No limitations on the use of FTCs (reasons, duration, number of renewal). However, art. 62(3) LC regulates termination of FTCs upon expiry of the term and provides that " a contract for one period of fixed duration shall set forth its date of termination. Such a contract shall, subject to the provisions of section 66 concerning dismissal, automatically terminate on that date and no notice of termination shall be required of either party."
In addition, art. 62(4) LC provides that "a contract to perform some specific work or to undertake a specified journey shall terminate upon the completion of the work or journey. No notice of termination shall be required of either party, but an employer who terminates such a contract before its completion shall pay the employee all wages and other remuneration that would have been owing to the employee if he or she had continued to work until the completion of the contract."
In addition, the LC provides that the non-renewal of a fixed-term contract, or contract for a specific task or journey, will result in dismissal only if the contract provides for the possibility of renewal (sec. 68(6) LC).

No statutory restrictions on the use of FTC (art. 62 LC).

Art. 75 LC
General rule: probationary period cannot exceed 4 months during which the employee may be dismissed with one week's notice.
However, it may be extended beyond 4 months only with the leave in writing of the Labour Commissioner.

Art. 66 (3) LC invalid reasons for terminating employment.
In addition, see art. 5 LC : general article on non-discrimination.
On HIV status, see: art. 235 G Labour Amendment Act 2006.
See also art. 67 LC: "If the Labour Court is satisfied that an employer dismissed an employee in order to avoid liability for providing the employee with any benefit provided for under the Code, such dismissal shall be deemed unfair".

- Women on maternity leave, see art. 136 LC: prohibition of dismissal.
- Worker's representatives, see code of good practices art. 11 (8) : specific discipline procedure (mandatory consultation with the trade union).

Art. 65 LC: notice to terminate a contract may be either oral or written.

(See also art. 69 LC: The employer shall provide a written statement of the reason for dismissal either before dismissal, at the time of dismissal or within four weeks of the dismissal having taken effect).

Art. 63 LC.
Statutory notice period is set according to the length of service, as follows:
* 1 or more years of service: 1 month's notice;
* more than 6 months and less than 1 year: a fortnight's notice;
* less than 6 months: 1 week's notice.

Art. 66 (1) a) LC : "operational requirements of the undertaking, establishment or service" can constitute a valid reason for dismissing an employee.
However, there is no mention in the Labour Code to when such dismissal could be described as collective. In addition, there is no specific statutory requirements such as consultation with trade union or notification to the labour administration for dismissals concerning more than one employees.

No statutory obligation.
However, it bas been established by case law.
For example, in the decision Serame Khampepe v. Muela Hydropower Project Contractors and four others (1997), the Labour Court, basing itself on the ILO Convention 158 and case law of South Africa, ruled that as a matter of precedent, "an employee earmarked for retrenchment must be notified in good time of the intended action and consulted on alternatives". "The established principle however is that where employees are members of a trade union or some other collective bodies, it is sufficient for the employer to consult with such a union and or/collective bodies".
(see:http://compendium.itcilo.org/en/compendium-decisions/labour-court-of-lesotho-serame-khampepe-v.-muela-hydropower-project-contractors-and-four-others-2-september-1999-no.-lc-29-97)
See aslo : Art. 19 (4) Code of good practices (not binding).

No statutory obligation.
However, it bas been established by case law.
For example, in the decision Serame Khampepe v. Muela Hydropower Project Contractors and four others (1997), the Labour Court, basing itself on the ILO Convention 158 and case law of South Africa, ruled that as a matter of precedent, "an employee earmarked for retrenchment must be notified in good time of the intended action and consulted on alternatives". "The established principle however is that where employees are members of a trade union or some other collective bodies, it is sufficient for the employer to consult with such a union and or/collective bodies".
(see: http://compendium.itcilo.org/en/compendium-decisions/labour-court-of-lesotho-serame-khampepe-v.-muela-hydropower-project-contractors-and-four-others-2-september-1999-no.-lc-29-97)

See aslo : Art. 19 (4) Code of good practices (not binding).

No statutory provision.
However, the 2003 Code of Good Practice (which is not legally binding), in art. 20 stipulates that selection criteria shall be discussed with the trade union and refers to length of service, skills, affirmative action and qualifications as criteria generally accepted as fair.

No statutory provision.
However, art. 21 of the 2003 government notice on code of good practice (not legally binding) provides for preferential re-hiring and conditions for its application.

No legally binding provision. However see: Art. 19 (1) Code of good practices.

Art. 79 LC:
- A worker is entitled to severance pay provided he has not been dismissed for misconduct and has completed more than one year of service.
- Severance pay shall amount to 2 weeks' wages for each year of service. However, "it shall not exceed a sum which may be prescribed by the Minister from time to time after consultation with the Wages Board". No information was found on this maximum amount.

However, the 1997 Labour Code Amendment Act provides for exemptions from statutory severance pay where the employer has demonstrated to the Labour Commissioner in writing that it offers a more advantageous separation benefit scheme.

No specific redundancy payment. Same as severance pay.
Art. 79 LC:
- A worker is entitled to severance pay provided he has not been dismissed for misconduct and has completed more than one year of service.
- Severance pay shall amount to 2 weeks' wages for each year of service.

However, the 1997 Labour Code Amendment Act provides for exemptions from statutory severance pay where the employer has demonstrated to the Labour Commissioner in writing that it offers a more advantageous separation benefit scheme.

No specific redundancy payment. Same as severance pay.
Art. 79 LC:
- A worker is entitled to severance pay provided he has not been dismissed for misconduct and has completed more than one year of service.
- Severance pay shall amount to 2 weeks' wages for each year of service.

However, the 1997 Labour Code Amendment Act provides for exemptions from statutory severance pay where the employer has demonstrated to the Labour Commissioner in writing that it offers a more advantageous separation benefit scheme.

Art. 73 LC: Compensation is awarded if the court decides that reinstatement is impracticable for the employer or if the employee does not wish to be reinstated. The amount of compensation shall be such amount as the court considers just and equitable. Mitigation of loss is the main criterion to decide the amount of compensation.

Art. 73 (1) LC: Reinstatement is the common remedy unless the employee does not wish to be reinstated of the Court (or the arbitrator) considers it to be impracticable.

See art. 227 (4) and (5) LC as amended in 2000.

Depending on the reason for dismissal, disputes are resolved either by the Labourt Court, either by arbitration.
In both cases, extra judicial prior conciliation is foreseen:
- Before a dispute is referred to the Labour Court by Directorate of Dispute Prevention and Resolution (DDPR), the Director of the DDOR shall appoint a conciliator to attempt to resolve the dispute by conciliation (art. 227 (5) LC).
- Prior to the resolution of a dispute by arbitration, the arbitrator appointed by the Director of the DDPR shall attempt to resolve the dispute by conciliation (art. 227 (4) LC).

On the process of conciliation, see: art. 228 B LC (as amended in 2000)

The 2000 Labour Code Amendment Act introduced important changes in the LC with regards to dispute settlement.
Pursuant to article 226 LC (amended by article 25 of the 2000 Amendment Act), jurisdiction to resolve dismissal disputes of right is now shared between the Labour Court and arbitration, as follows:
- The Labour Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction in disputes concerning an unfair dismissal if the raison for the dismissal is (art. 226 (1) LC):
i) for participation in a strike;
ii) as a consequence of a lock-out; or
iii) related to the operational requirements of the employer.
Note that the Labour Court also has exclusive jurisdiction on unfair labour practices and on disputes concerning the application or interpretation of any provision of the Labour Code or any other labour law unless the disputes concerns a matter that shall be exclusively resolved by arbitration as provided in art. 226 (2) LC.
- A dispute concerning an unfair dismissal for any reason other than a reason referred to above (see i), ii), iii)) shall be resolved by arbitration. Therefore, a dispute concerning dismissal for reasons relating to the conduct of the employee or its capacity is to be solved by an arbitrator.
In addition, arbitration applies to : a dispute referred by agreement; a dispute concerning the application of a collective agreement, a breach of a contract of employment, a wages order and a dispute concerning the underpayment of any monies due under the Labour Code. (art. 226 (2) LC)
- Any dispute should be firstly referred to by any party to the Directorate of Dispute Prevention and Resolution (DDPR) in charge of referring the dispute to the competent body (Labour Court or arbitrator) in accordance with the above-mentioned rules (art. 227 LC). However, would the Director of the DDPR consider that a dispute that concerns matters for which arbitration is foreseen also concerns matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, he could refer the case to that Court (art. 226 (3) LC).

According to article 226 and 227 LC (as amended in 2000), arbitration is not an alternative mode of dispute settlement. In some cases listed in art. 226 (2) LC, dispute shall be settled through arbitration.