About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2018
>>
[2018] ZALCJHB 188
|
|
Tasima (Pty) Ltd v Road Traffic Management Corporation and Others (J890/17) [2018] ZALCJHB 188 (24 May 2018)
THE LABOUR COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case
no:
J890/17
In the matter between:
TASIMA (PTY) LTD
Applicant
and
ROAD TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
First respondent
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORT
DIRECTOR GENERAL:
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORT
MINISTER OF
TRANSPORT
EMPLOYEES LISTED IN
ANNEXURE “A” TO
THE NOTICE OF
MOTION
MAKHOSI MSIBI
Second respondent
Third respondent
Fourth respondent
Fifth to Eighty
fourth respondents
Eighty fifth
respondent
Decided:
In chambers
Delivered:
24 May 2018
JUDGMENT:
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
NKUTHA-NKONTWANA.
J
Introduction
[1]
This
is an unopposed application for leave to appeal brought by the
applicant against the whole judgment and order handed down by
this
Court on 17 January 2018.
[2]
The
applicant
approached
the Court on urgent basis by way of contempt of court proceedings
seeking to enforce the order by Steenkamp J against
the first and
eighty fifth respondents. I dismissed the application.
[3]
The
notice of application for leave to appeal was filed on 7 February
2018. The
dies
for filing submissions expired on 21 February 2018 as per
Clause
15.2 of this Court’s Practice Manual.
Three
months has passed and the applicant is yet to file its written
submissions.
[4]
I
therefore proceed to decide this application without the benefit of
the respondent’s submissions. I do so in accordance
with one of
the objects of the
Labour
Relations Act (the LRA)
[1]
which
is
t
o
ensure expeditious resolution of industrial disputes. Therefore,
parties
cannot litigate at their leisure.
[2]
Grounds of appeal and
analysis
[5]
The
application is pegged on several grounds of appeal as articulated in
the notice of the application for leave to appeal and I
do not intend
repeating them in this judgment. The crux of the assail by the
applicant is fundamentally that I erred in dismissing
the contempt
proceedings. However, it is clear that the applicant sought to
enforce the order by Steenkamp J, directing the first
respondent to
make payment of the amounts set out in columns titled “
annual
13
th
cheque”
and
“
annual
bonus”
in the schedule annexed to the founding affidavit of Fannie Lynen
Mahlangu dated 29 December 2017.
[6]
Clearly,
the applicant ought to have issued a writ of execution, a remedy that
is adequate and cost effective, to enforce the above
order.
[7]
Having
considered all the grounds of leave to appeal
,
I am not convinced that
the applicant has made out a case that another Court might reasonably
arrive at a decision different to
the one reached by this Court.
[3]
The application for leave to appeal should, therefore, be refused.
[8]
The
following order is made:
Order
1.
The
application for leave to appeal against the judgment handed down on
17 January 2018 is dismissed.
_____________________
P.
Nkutha-Nkontwana
Judge
of the Labour Court of South Africa
[1]
Act 66 of 1995 as amended.
[2]
Philppus Johannes Lodewyk Olivier v The Gemeenskaplike Kerk and
Others
(Case no: JS 487/15 Unreported) at para 12.
[3]
Martin and East (Pty) Limited v National Union Mineworkers and
Others
[2013] ZALAC 35
; (2014) 35 ILJ 2399 (LAC) at
[2013] ZALAC
35
; (2014) 35 ILJ 2399 (LAC) page 16 lines 12 - 25 and page 17 lines
1 – 18; See also
National Union of Metalworkers of South
Africa and Others v Columbus
Stainless [2016] ZALCJHB 344
at paras 2-3.