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 391
|
|
Mocheke v GPSSBC and Others (JR1916/17) [2018] ZALCJHB 391 (29 November 2018)
IN
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, POLOKWANE
Not Reportable
case
no:
JR
1916/17
In
the matter between:
R
P
MOCHEKE
Applicant
and
THE
GPSSBC First
Respondent
MOLOKO
EPHRAIM PHOOKO
N.O.
Second
Respondent
MINISTER:
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS
Third
Respondent
Heard
:
27 November 2018
Delivered
:
29 November 2018
Summary:
Review of an arbitration award – where an award falls within
the bounds of reasonableness – the award is not reviewable
in
law. Held: (1) The application for review is dismissed with no order
as to costs.
JUDGMENT
MOSHOANA,
J
Introduction
[1]
This is an unopposed application for review. The applicant is seeking
to review and set aside an award made by the second respondent
in
terms of which he found that his dismissal was fair.
Background
facts
[2]
The applicant an employee of the Department of Home Affairs was
tasked to investigate a case at Malale. He obtained authorisation
to
travel there. He got wind of some illegality at a farm. He travelled
there and found illegal immigrants. He did nothing as on
his version
he had another urgent Identity Document case to attend to. On the
version of the farm owner, Mr Patel, the applicant
was given cash
amounting to R10 000.00. On his way back, the applicant was
stopped and some cash amount was found in his possession.
He was
charged, found guilty and dismissed. He was aggrieved and referred an
alleged unfair dismissal dispute to the first respondent.
The second
respondent was appointed. He issued an award dismissing the
applicant’s referral. Aggrieved thereby, he approached
this
court for relief.
The
grounds for review
[3]
The applicant alleges that the decision arrived at is not one that a
reasonable arbitrator can arrive at. He further alleges
that the
second respondent misdirected himself and demonstrated bias towards
him. He failed to apply mind.
Evaluation
[4]
The decision arrived at by the second
respondent is perfectly consistent with the evidence presented. There
was overwhelming evidence
that the applicant was indeed guilty as
charged. I am unable to agree that the second respondent failed to
apply mind nor misdirected
himself. The submissions by Mr Letsela,
appearing for the applicant are nothing but an attempt to appeal. The
evidence of Mr Patel
is clear and the second respondent cannot be
faulted in accepting it at the expense of that of the applicant. The
applicant’s
version was simply improbable and less convincing.
[5]
Accordingly, the award is one that falls
within the bounds of reasonableness and the application is bound to
fail.
[6]
Accordingly, I conclude that the award is not
reviewable in law.
[7]
In the results, I make the following order:
Order
1.
The
application for review is dismissed with no order as to costs.
_______________________
GN Moshoana
Judge
of the Labour Court of South Africa
Appearances:
For the Applicant:
Attorney M Letsela of M Letsela Attorneys, Polokwane.