Electronic Court judgements

Browse Court Judgements by court

It is common cause that appellant’s earlier appeal (under LC/H/284/22) against the determination in casu was struck off the roll by the Court for failure to file the record of proceedings conducted by the Designated Agent. Such record is required in terms of Rule 19(1) (b) of the Labour Court Rule S.I. 150/17. Respondent argued that appellant’s remedy provided by the Practice Direction would be an application for reinstatement as envisaged by the proviso to paragraph 5 of the Direction. Instead appellant applied for condonation of a late appeal which was granted by this court on 16 January 2023. Appellant... More

The appellant is appealing against the arbitral award of Honourable N S Zengeni which was handed down on 20 September 2012. More

This judgement only addressed the 2 points in limine which were taken by the respondent employer in an appeal at the instance of the appellant employee. This follows a labour dispute pitting the 2 and which saw them appearing before the National Hearing Committee whose decision is now meant to be decided on appeal in the labour court. The 2 points taken are that invalid grounds of appeal have been raised and that the relief sought is not clear. In the result the employer prays that the appeal be struck off the roll with costs on account of it being... More

Respondent was employed by appellant as a tool-setter. He is alleged to have influenced other employees to proceed on a “go slow”. A machine broke down and it was attributed to respondent’s actions. He was brought before a Disciplinary Committee which recommended his dismissal. An appeal to the Works Council met with a similar fate. Respondent further appealed to the industry’s General Engineering Code of Conduct Appeals Sub Committee (hereinafter the GEC) which found in his favour and ordered his reinstatement. More

The appellants are employed as drivers by the respondent. They had a dispute with the respondent over alleged non payment of overtime. The dispute was referred to an arbitrator who dismissed the claim by the appellants. The appellants noted this appeal and the grounds of appeal are briefly that; 1. The arbitrator erred and misdirected herself at law as she applied terms and conditions that do not apply to the appellants. She used conditions that apply to Grades A, B, C, D & E but the appellants were in Grade F. 2. The arbitrator erred and misdirected herself at law... More