This is an application in terms of Section 93 (5a) and (5b) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] as amended for the confirmation of a draft ruling issued by the applicant in the matter between SHAKENATE CHARI and EMPIRE COLLEGE. The matter involved non-payment of terminal benefits and underpayment of wages, wherein Shakenate Chari (2nd respondent) was claiming of a total of $34 363,99 broken-down as follows:-
- underpayment of wages $484 x 5 yrs = $29 040.00
- leave days 40.33 x 5 years = 2 419.00
- gratuity 10% = 2 904,00
TOTAL = $34 363.99 More
Applicant applied to this Court for the review of disciplinary proceedings against her conducted by respondent. The application was made in terms of Section 89(1) d1 of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 hereby called the Act. Respondents opposed the application. More
This is an appeal against a determination by the Respondent Managing director handed down on the 7th of March 2014 which determination altered an earlier decision by the Respondent Disciplinary Committee to impose a final written warning with an addition to pay Respondent for cost of hiring a recovery vehicle. The Managing Director altered the penalty to a heavier penalty of termination with immediate effect.
The background facts to the matter are as follows;
The Appellant was employed by the Respondent as a Cross Border Driver in August 2010. On the 18th of December 2013 he allegedly went off route... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the National Employment Council (NEC) Welfare and Educational Institutions Appeals Committee which confirmed Appellant’s dismissal verdict. More
The matter was placed before me as an application for dismissal of a matter in terms of Rule 19(3) and (4) of the Labour Court Rules, 2006. The application was opposed.
The applicant in his founding affidavit averred that the respondent filed an application for condonation of late noting of an appeal against the decision of the Arbitrator handed down on the 31st of August 2013. He had duly served his notice of opposition to the application on 24 September 2012. The respondent having then failed to file heads of argument in terms of the Rules he filed a chamber... More
