This is an application for the late filing of an application for review. Following a determination in the labour dispute between the employer and the employee the employee breached the legal requirement pertaining to his filing of a review application. It is against this background that the employee seeks to have this court condone his breach and grant him a chance to be heard in his review matter. The employer is opposed to the grant of such condonation and persists that this court decline such indulgence. More
Respondent filed an application for rescission of judgment in the name of its Human Resources Manager on the 9 September 2013. Applicant duly filed its response to that application on the 8 January 2014 and served it on respondent’s legal practitioners of record in the application for quantification which is also before this court.
The application for rescission of judgment has not been set down for hearing in terms of Rule 21 of this Court’s Rules S.I. 59 of 2006. More
d) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01].
The factual background to the matter is as follows:
The applicant was employed by the respondent as a Sales and Marketing Manager. The applicant fell ill and had to proceed on statutory sick leave. After the expiry of the statutory leave days, a qualified medical practitioner having recommended retirement on medical grounds, the applicant appeared before the ZESA Medical Board. He appeared on two separate occasions before the Board. What happened at the Medical Board is subject to different interpretations by both parties. The applicant alleges that on the two separate occasions the... More
This is an application for upliftment of bar and condonation of late filing of heads of argument.
The applicant filed an appeal with this court on 17 May 2013. On 5 June 2013 the respondent filed its response. In terms of r 19(1)(a) of the Labour Court Rules S I 59 of 2006, the applicant was supposed to file its heads of argument within fourteen days of receiving the response from the respondent. The failure to comply with r 19(1)(a) has resulted in the applicant being barred in terms of r 19(3)(b). More
This is an appeal against two interim awards and a quantification award. Appellant was employed by respondent in the human resources department. On 14 January 2010 she was dismissed from employment for misconduct. She appealed against her dismissal. On 16 December 2011 this Court set aside her dismissal and ordered respondent to conduct a re-hearing on penalty. Pending the outcome of the re-hearing, appellant was to remain on suspension without pay and benefits. More
