City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Maree NO and Others (J2098/18) [2018] ZALCJHB 355 (6 November 2018)

46 Reportability

Brief Summary

Labour Law — Leave to appeal — Applicant seeking leave to appeal against judgment concerning conflicting interpretations of section 145(7) and (8) of the Labour Relations Act — Court finds merit in the application due to the existence of conflicting judgments in the Labour Court — Leave to appeal granted to resolve the inconsistencies.

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 355
|

|

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Maree NO and Others (J2098/18) [2018] ZALCJHB 355 (6 November 2018)

IN
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not
Reportable
Case
No: J2098/18
In
the matter between:
CITY
OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY
Applicant
and
E
MAREE
N.O
First
Respondent
SEKGALA
AND OTHERS [2003 GROUP] AND
MACHETE
AND OTHERS [2012 GROUP]
Second
Respondent
SHERIFF
OF THE HIGH COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT
OF PRETORIA (FREDDY BATT
N.O)
Third
Respondent
Considered:
In Chambers
Delivered:
06 November 2018
JUDGMENT;
LEAVE TO APPEAL
MABASO,
AJ
[1]
The applicant seeks leave to appeal the judgement and order of this
Court dated 29 January 2018. The applicant raised a number
of grounds
for leave to appeal and one of them is that there are two conflicting
judgements of this Court  relating to the
provisions of section
145 (7) and (8) of the Labour Relations Act
[1]
.
As the applicant says “
the
appeal will resolve the question of two conflicting judgements from
same Labour Court.”
[2]
I have taken into account all the grounds that have been raised
especially the one that deals with the provisions of section
145(7)
and (8) of the LRA. Taking into accounts these conflicting judgments,
being
Rustenburg
local municipality v South African local government bargaining
council
[2]
and
others
Free State Gambling Board v CCMA and others
[3]
.
I am persuaded that maybe another court might come to a different
conclusion.
[3]
In the premises the following order is made:
Order:
1.
The application for leave to appeal is granted;
2.
Costs will be costs in the appeal.
S.
Mabaso
Acting
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
[1]
66 of 1995, as amended.
[2]
(2015) 36 ILJ 2867 (LC).
[3]
[2017] 11 BLLR 1161
(LC).