At the close of submissions I dismissed the application stating that the reasons would follow. The following are the reasons.
Applicant was employed by Respondent and was charged with contravening section 3.2.4 (c) of Respondent’s Group Employment Code of Conduct. Applicant is alleged to have grossly failed to manage the stocks of explosives in terms of the safety procedures. The Hearing Committee recommended his dismissal. Applicant appealed to the Disciplinary and Grievance Committee which upheld the dismissal. Applicant’s Counsel thereafter appealed to the National Employment Council (NEC) which was in fact the wrong forum. The Applicant has finally approached this... More
Appellant was employed by the Respondent as waiter. He was engaged for eight (8) days and was allegedly dismissed. The matter finally landed in arbitration. An initial arbitration award was set aside by Justice KUDYA. In the second arbitration, the Arbitrator found in favour of Appellant. Appellant is not satisfied with this award and appealed to this Court. More
The Respondent objected to the Appellant’s failure to file Heads of Argument on time and submitted that the Appellant is therefore barred automatically in terms of Labour Court Rules. In his counter argument, the Appellant submitted that the failure to file Heads of Argument on time was caused by the Respondent’s failure to file a Notice of Response in terms of the Rules. Respondent submitted that although the prescribed Notice of Response was not filed, there was a notice of opposition filed in an interim application by the Appellant and it was clear from the Notice of opposition that the... More
This is an application for rescission of a judgment which was granted in the absence of the applicants. The applicants have asserted that they or at least one of them (1st applicant) used to make regular checks with the court officials and were consistently told that no set down date had been granted. The first applicant was surprised one day when upon insisting that he wanted to know what was happening the he was told that the matter had already been disposed of. Thus the present application became necessary. More
The facts of this case are not in dispute. Following suspicion that some employees including appellant defrauded respondent through false travel and subsistence claims, investigations were made. The appellant together with other employees involved in the fraudulent activities were charged for violating paragraphs 13 e and 24 of the first schedule of the Civil Service Regulations, 2000 as amended. He was found liable and dismissed from employment with effect from 16 April 2015. More
