On 12th February 2013 this Court’s Registrar issued a notification to the parties to attend today’s hearing. The notification was issued in terms of Rule 19 (3) (a) of the Labour Court Rules S.I. 59/06 (hereafter called the Rules). At the hearing Applicant was represented by a unionist. Respondent was represented by an attorney. The attorney raised a point inlimine. This was to the effectthat Applicant was barred for failure to file Heads of Argumenttimeously Applicant’s representative stated that he had problems communicating with Applicant. As a result he failed to filed Heads timeously. He did however manage to file... More
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. This court dismissed an appeal by the applicant against dismissal on the basis that it had been done in terms of section 63 (e) of the Public Service Regulations, 2000, as amended. Applicant had failed to resume duty after the expiry of his suspension on 29 June 2011 and was absent from duty for a continuous period in excess of thirty days. More
This is an appeal against the dismissal of the appellant in terms of section 63 (e) of the Public Services Regulations, 2000, as amended. The appellant failed to resume duty after the expiry of his suspension on 29 June 2011 and was absent from duty for a continuous period in excess of thirty days. Section 63 (e) of the Public Service Regulations, 2000, allows the Commission or head of Ministry to discharge from the Public Service any member who:
“has been absent from duty for a continuous period in excess of thirty days without having been granted leave of absence.” More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award where the arbitrator ruled that, the Appellants were casual workers and ordered that they be paid the amounts that they were short-charged on their casual work basis. More
This is an application forcondonation for late noting of an application for review.
When the matter came up for hearing, a preliminary point was taken by the 2nd respondent. It argued that the draft ruling being sought to be taken on review has no legal force until after its confirmation when it is made an order of the court.
The 2nd respondent submitted, in support of the preliminary point that it had raised, that the application is improperly before the court as it is based on nothing. The proceedings which are sought to be challenged cannot be taken on appeal... More
