About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Cape Town Labour Court, Cape Town
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Cape Town Labour Court, Cape Town
>>
2012
>>
[2012] ZALCCT 33
|
|
Melane v G4S Security Services (Pty) Ltd (C1012/2011) [2012] ZALCCT 33; (2012) 33 ILJ 2425 (LC) (9 May 2012)
3
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN
JUDGMENT
Reportable
Case no: C1012/2011
In the matter between:
THEMBEKILE DUNCOR MELANE
….........................................................
Applicant
and
G4S SECURITY SERVICES (PTY) LTD
….............................................
Respondent
Heard on: 02 February 2012
Delivered on: 9 May 2012
______________________________________________________________
judgment
______________________________________________________________
EDMONDS
AJ
Introduction
[1] This is an application in terms
of section 158 (1) (c) of the Labour Relations Act
1
(‘the LRA’) to have the
settlement agreement arrived at between the parties at the Commission
for Concilation, Mediation
and Arbitration, dated 27 January 2006,
made an order of court.
[2] The applicant represented himself and the matter was
unopposed.
Background Facts
[3] The agreement referred to above reads as follows:
‘
The above parties wish to record their
agreement reached in full and final settlement of all claims arising
from the employment
relationship/this referral;
The employer agrees to pay the employee a settlement amount of 1
(one) month’s pay equivalent to R1 700.00 (one thousand
and
seven hundred rands) payment on 3 February 2006. The money would be
deposited into his bank account. The employer also agrees
to
re-employ the employee on condition that he submits a Doctor’s
report indicating that he is fit to work.’
[4] It is apparent from the documents annexed to the
affidavit in support of the application that the respondent complied
with its
obligation to make payment of R1 700.00 (one thousand and
seven hundred rands) to the applicant and this was confirmed by the
applicant
in the course of the proceedings.
[5] It is the remaining obligation which the applicant
seeks to have made an order of court. The applicant states that he
has submitted
a Doctor’s report indicating that he is fit to
work and that, accordingly, the respondent is obliged to re-employ
him in
terms of the agreement.
[6] Attached to the founding affidavit, the applicant
annexed a note which appears to be written by a Doctor N D Yakon of
the G
F Jootse Hospital dated 6 February 2006 in which he concludes
that:
‘
I think he is a very motivated person and
can do any kind of job that will allow him to sit down most of the
day or any kind of
light duty. He is still on medical follow up, will
need to come for his review.’
[7] In addition, there is a note from a Doctor T Crede
of the same hospital dated 19 November 2007 addressed to Mr Du
Plessis of
the respondent in which he states as follows:
‘
I have reviewed the above patient today,
and he has asked me to provide you with an update.
His legs have progressed as much as can be expected and further
recovery is unlikely. However his ability to work behind a desk
is
not affected. There have been concerns about his eyesight, but a
review by an eye specialist and the provision of spectacles
may well
solve that problem. If you could assist him and even consider him for
a job again, this would be much appreciated.’
Applicable Legal Principals
[8] Although a period of seven years has passed since
the agreement was reached at the CCMA and whilst the debt in the
agreement
entered into is a debt as contemplated by the
Prescription
Act 68 of 1969
which would, in normal course, prescribe three years
after the date on which it in terms of the agreement became due,
section 17
(1) of the
Prescription Act states
that:
‘
A court shall not of its own
motion take notice of prescription.’
Order
[9] In the circumstances, I make the following order:
1. The agreement entered into between the parties under
CCMA case number: WE14869-05 on 27 January 2005 at Cape Town is
hereby made
an order of court.
2. There is no order as to costs.
_____________________
EDMONDS AJ
ACTING JUDGE OF THE LABOUR COURT
APPEARANCES:
For
the Applicant: IN PERSON
For
the Third Respondent: NO APPEARANCE
1
Act
No 66 of 1995