About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2015
>>
[2015] ZALCJHB 118
|
|
Erens and Another v EnValue AG (Pty) Ltd (JS 285/14) [2015] ZALCJHB 118 (17 March 2015)
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
THE LABOUR COURT,
JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
Case no: JS 285/14
DATE: 17 MARCH 2015
Not Reportable
In the matter between
DYLAN
ERENS
...............................................................................................................
First
Applicant
MYLES PETER
RENNIE
...........................................................................................
Second
Applicant
And
EnVALUE AG (PTY)
LTD
....................................................................................................
Respondent
Heard:10 March 2015
Delivered: 17 March 2015
JUDGMENT
MOLAHLEHI J
[1] The applicants who prior to the
termination of their employment contracts were employed by the
respondent alleged that the respondent
was in breach of their
contracts in that it failed to pay them their monthly salaries
including in certain instances short-paying
them. This the applicants
accepted as the repudiation of their employment contracts by the
respondent and it is for that reason
that they are claiming damages.
[2] The applicant’s claims are
based on failure to pay their salaries for certain months, payment of
accrued leave, notice
pay, travelling allowances, cellphone
allowances and IT allowances.
[3] The breakdown of the amount due and
owing to the applicants are set out in the order made at the end of
this judgment.
[4] The applicants contend that despite
proper service, the respondent has failed to file its statement of
opposition to their statement
of claim. The dies for filing the
statement of defence have expired. It is on this basis that they are
seeking a default judgment.
[5] I am satisfied that there has been
proper service of the statement of claim on the respondent and
therefore I see no reason
why the applicants claims should not be
considered. In addition in the absence of opposition and challenge to
the version presented
by the applicants in their statement of claim I
see no reason why their version should not be believed.
Order
[6] In the premises the following order
is made:
1. The Respondent is in breach of the
employment contracts of the applicants.
2. The Respondent is ordered to pay the
applicants amounts due and owing the applicants to them in the
following terms:
2.1 For the first applicant
2.1.1 A total amount of: R603 119.51
which amount is calculated as follows:
i. September 2013 salary: R113 259.50
ii. Period 1 to 11 October 2013: R47
645.53
iii. Leave days due R103.035.98
iv. Notice Pay: R339 778.50
v. Interest in the above amount.
2.2 For the Second Applicant
2.2.1 A total amount of R464 667.18
which is calculated as follows:
i. September 2013 salary: R86 509.50
ii. Period 1 – 11 October 2013:
R35 934.16
iii. Leave days dueR78 700.60
iv. Notice pay R259 528.50
v. Interest in the above amount.
3. There is no order as to costs.
E MOLAHLEHI
Judge of the Labour Court
Johannesburg
Appearances:
For the Applicant: Q. Horn of Horn
Attorneys
For the Respondent: No Appearance.