About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2017
>>
[2017] ZALCJHB 21
|
|
MEC for Economic Development Gauteng v General Public Services Sectoral Bargaining Council and Another (J856/2011) [2017] ZALCJHB 21 (27 January 2017)
IN
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
Not
Reportable
Case
no: J 856/2011
In
the matter between
MEC
FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
GAUTENG Applicant
and
GENERAL
PUBLIC SERVICES SECTORAL
BARGAINING
COUNCIL First
Respondent
ZS
SIBEKO
N.O Second
Respondent
LIBUSENG
MONGOYA-BOMVANA
Heard:
In chambers
Dated:
27 January 2017
Summary:
Application for leave to appeal an
ex tempore
judgement of 2 September 2015 – application filed on 25
September 2015 – incomplete application – non-compliance
with a directive
JUDGMENT- LEAVE TO APPEAL
COETZEE,
AJ
[1]
The Applicant applied for condonation for the late filing of an
application to rescind an order made by the Honourable Court
in terms
of section 158 of the Labour Relations Act.
[2]
The Court on 2 September 2015 when the opposed application was heard
made the following order:
[2.1] The application to condone the
late filing of the rescission application is dismissed;
[2.2] The Applicant is ordered to pay
the Third Respondent's costs.
[3]
The Applicant on 25 September 2015 filed an application for leave to
appeal to the Labour Appeal Court against the whole of
the judgement
including the cost order.
[4]
The Applicant in its application set out the grounds upon which it
intended to rely to obtain leave to appeal.
[5]
The application was not accompanied by a transcript of the judgement
and the reasons for the judgement of 2 September 2015.
[6]
Upon my instructions the Judge's Associate on 26 October 2016, more
than a year later, issued a directive to the Applicant's
attorneys of
record to file the transcribed judgement by not later than Friday 11
November 2016.
[7]
The Applicant has not responded to the directive and has not filed a
transcription of the judgement accompanied by the reasons.
[8]
It is evident from the conduct of the Applicant that it does not
intend to comply with the directive or to pursue the application
for
leave to appeal. The application is fatally defective. For these two
reasons, the application stands to be dismissed.
[9]
I make the following order:
[9.1] The application for leave to
appeal is dismissed;
[9.2] There is no order as to costs.
______________________
F
Coetzee
Acting
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa