This matter came before me on 8th November 2013 for the Application for Condonation for late noting of appeal. Respondent raised a point in limine in that Applicant had not complied with the Rules of the Court and as a result Applicant should be barred in terms of Rule 19 (1). Respondent further stated that the Court should proceed in terms of Rule 28 (6) (b) as Applicant had not filed Heads of Argument in compliance with the Rules. More
The matter was reserved to enable me to consider whether the respondent who had failed to file a notice of response in terms of the Labour Court rules, 2006, had shown good cause for his failure to file a response.
Initially the respondent had requested the court to postpone the matter to enable then to pursue an application for condonation and up lifting of the bar that was operating against then. The court did not agree that the postponement would serve any useful purpose. The court advised the applicant that the matter would proceed in terms of rule 22 (a)... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the works council appeals committee which upheld appellant’s dismissal following fraud allegations in breach of the respondent’s code of conduct. More
The Respondent raised a preliminary objection because up to the time of the hearing, the Applicant had not filed Heads of Argument, in contravention of Rule 19 of the Labour Court Rules. Respondent’s counsel said the Applicant is therefore barred in terms of Rule 19 (3) and should not be heard. More
