About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2002
>>
[2002] ZALCJHB 4
|
|
Motloung v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1407/02) [2002] ZALCJHB 4 (4 December 2002)
Sneller
Verbatim/rs
IN
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN
CASE
NO: JR1407/02
DATE:
2002-12-04
In
the matter between
BENJAMIN
MOTLOUNG Applicant
and
THE
COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,
MEDIATION
AND
ARBITRATION
1
st
Respondent
L.
H. CELLIER
(COMMISSIONER)
2
nd
Respondent
B.
PAXTON 3
rd
Respondent
J U D G M E N T
REVELAS,
J
:
1.
The applicant was dismissed by the
respondent on the 6th of March 2002 and referred the dispute to the
Commission for Conciliation,
Mediation and Arbitration on the 2nd of
June in other words, at that stage the referral was 12 days out of
time.
2.
The referral was noted by the applicant's
attorneys who referred a defective referral at the end of April
2000. According
to the commissioner who heard the condonation
application the applicant gave no explanation for a subsequent two
months' delay.
The commissioner made a ruling which reads as follows:
"
The
length of the delay is excessive and the explanation has no merit.
The applicant's legal representatives' tardiness is
not acceptable.
The failure to explain the two months' delay is equally unacceptable
and the a basic omission in this application
on the vague submission
much regarding the dismissal I am not convinced that the applicant's
prospects of success are good.
Condonation under the
circumstances is denied.
”
3.
The applicant has now brought an
application to review and set aside the ruling of the commissioner.
The applicant's papers
are completed by someone else, and not by him.
The applicant stated that he is unable to write and asked a lady at
the CCMA to
fill in his application for condonation, but she did not
write down all the details.
4.
It is apparent from the condonation ruling
that the commissioner hardly referred to any facts before him
in coming to the
finding, in which he deprived the applicant of all
relief. I have read the affidavit of the applicant regarding
his dismissal.
There are facts therein which appears to have been in
front of the commissioner, but not considered, such as the
applicant's prospects
of success which seem good. In the
circumstances I do not think that the commissioner applied his mind
to the facts before
him.
5.
In the circumstances I make the following
order:
1.
The condonation ruling dated 15 July 2002
under case number GA11265 of 2000 is set aside and substituted with
the following.
Condonation for the late referral is granted.
_________________
E.
Revelas