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 275
|
|
NUMSA obo Mogale and Others v Three Gees Calvising CC and Another (JS 319/08) [2015] ZALCJHB 275 (17 August 2015)
THE
LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
Case
no: JS 319/08
DATE:
17 AUGUST 2015
Not
Reportable
In the matter
between:
NUMSA obo MOGALE
J & 16
Others
.................................................................................
Applicants
And
THREE GEES
CALVISING
CC
.................................................................................
First
Respondent
GALVADIP (PTY)
LTD
...........................................................................................
Second
Respondent
Delivered: 17
August 2015
Matter considered
in chambers
JUDGMENT
MOLAHLEHI, J
[1] This is an
application for leave to appeal against the judgment of this Court
made on 30 April 2014 in terms of which the dismissal
of the
applicants (“the employees”) was found to have been
unfair. The second respondent was accordingly ordered to
compensate
the applicants for that reason. The judgment was made in default of
the second respondent failing to comply with the
order made by Basson
J on 3 February 2014. Basson J’s order was never set aside
either on the basis of rescission or appeal.
[2] The second
respondent in its challenge to the judgment of this Court has raised
several grounds of leave to appeal. I do not
intend repeating the
same in the present judgment. The issue which this Court needs to
deal with is whether there are reasonable
prospects that another
Court faced with the same facts would have arrived at a different
conclusion.
[3] The key issue
raised by the respondents in their application for leave to appeal,
has to do with the question of jurisdiction.
In this respect the
respondents contend that the applicants were never employed by the
second respondent and that issue ought to
have been determined first
before considering the application for the default judgment.
[4] This issue has
to do with whether the court had jurisdiction to entertain the
application for default judgment, without firstly
determining whether
the applicants were employees. I am in agreement with the respondents
that another court may find that this
court would have arrived at a
different conclusion had it determined the issue of whether or not
the applicants were employed by
the second respondent.
[5] In light of the
above I am satisfied that the respondents have made out a case for
leave to appeal to the Labour Appeal Court.
Order
[6] The respondents
are granted leave to appeal to the Labour Appeal with no order as to
costs.
Molahlehi J
Judge of the
Labour Court of South Africa