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 412
|
|
Xulu v Bruno Quatro Engineering (Pty) Ltd (J440/14) [2015] ZALCJHB 412 (26 November 2015)
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
Not Reportable
Case Number: J440/14
In the matter between:
SICEBI
KHULANU XULU
Applicant
and
BRUNO QUATRO
ENGINEERING (PTY) LTD
Respondent
Date heard: 21
August 2014
Delivered:
26 November 2015 - Judgment delayed on request of parties in
anticipation of LAC decision on
prescription.
JUDGMENT
RABKIN-NAICKER J
[1] This
opposed contempt application came before me on the 21 August 2014.
The respondent, it was claimed, was in contempt of an
arbitration
award which was issued on the 20 June 2008 under case number MEGA
17793.
[2] Given
divergent approaches in the Labour Court in regard to the application
of the Prescription Act, the parties asked that
I reserved judgment
until the Labour Appeal Court handed down judgment in respect of this
question.
[3] The
judgment under case numbers JA122/14; JA39/14 and CA 3/14
[1]
was delivered on 6 November 2015 and dealt with arbitration awards
pre-dating the 2014 amendments to the LRA, such as that in question.
The court found that the Prescription Act applied to arbitration
awards made in terms of the LRA regardless of whether such award
was
compensatory or a reinstatement award with or without back-pay.
Awards under the LRA are subject to a three year prescriptive
period
and are due on delivery of the Award regardless of whether the award
is certified or not.
[4] In the
circumstances the award in this case had prescribed when the
application for contempt was launched on 10 March 2013.
The contempt
application therefore stands to be dismissed. I therefore make the
following order:
Order
1.
The application is dismissed.
_____________________
H. Rabkin-Naicker
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
Appearances:
Applicant: Mabaso Attorneys
Respondent: O’Donovan Atttorney
[1]
Sizwe Myathaza v Johannesburg Metrolpoital Bus
Service (Soc) Limited t/a Metrobus, Daniel Maibuk v Concor Plant
and
Cellucity (Pty) Ltd v CWU obo Peters
respectively