About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2019
>>
[2019] ZALCJHB 379
|
|
Qongwana v Arcelor Mittal (JR2601/18) [2019] ZALCJHB 379 (3 March 2019)
IN
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not
Reportable
Case
no: JR2601/18
In
the matter between:
FIKILE
WALTER QONGWANA
Applicant
and
ARCELOR
MITTAL
Respondent
Heard:
03 March 2019
Delivered:
03 March 2019
Edited:
In view of the measures implemented as a result of the Covid-19
outbreak,
this judgment was handed down electronically by circulation
to the parties' representatives by email. The date for hand-down is
deemed to be 20 June 2022
LEAVE
TO APPEAL- JUDGMENT
CELE,
J
Introduction
[1]
This is an application in terms of section 166(1) of
the Labour
Relations Act (LRA), read with section 17(6) of the Superior Courts
Act ,where the applicant seeks leave to appeal against
an
ex-tempore
judgment of this Court, issued on 03 March 2019, in this matter. An
arbitration award in this matter was successfully reviewed,
set aside
and substituted at the instance of the applicant, who opposes this
application. The appellation of the parties as they
were in the
review application shall be retained. The application for leave to
appeal was filed late and condonation application
was not sought.
[2]
To succeed in an application for leave to appeal, an
applicant has to
satisfy me that the appeal has reasonable prospects of success or
that there is some other compelling reason why
the appeal should be
heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter under
consideration. The threshold to grant leave to
appeal has been raised
higher. The onus rests with the applicant to demonstrate the presence
of any of these identified circumstances.
[3]
The applicant failed to file his written
submissions as prescribed by
Rule 30(3A) read with clause
s
15.2 of the Labour Court Practice Manual (Practice Manual).
Nonetheless, to the extent that there are some scanty contentions
contained
in the notice for leave to appeal, I have dealt with the
merits of this application.
[4]
The
threshold
for granting leave to appeal in terms of section 17(1)(a)(i) of the
Supreme Courts Act
[1]
(SCA) is high. To succeed, a party seeking leave to appeal must show
that the appeal ‘would’ have reasonable prospects
of
success. Put otherwise, it must be show that another court ‘will’,
not ‘might’, differ from the court
whose judgment is
sought to be appealed against.
[2]
When
it comes to labour matters, another pivotal consideration is the
imperative that labour disputes must be expeditiously resolved.
[3]
[5]
Having holistically assessed all the grounds of appeal,
I am
convinced that there are no prospects that another court would
reasonably arrive at a decision different to the one reached
by this
Court. Even though this application is undoubtedly unmeritorious, I
am disinclined to award costs against Mr Qongwana,
an individual
litigant.
[6]
Order:
1. The leave
to appeal is accordingly dismissed.
2. There is
no order as to costs.
H.
Cele
Judge
of the Labour Court of South Africa
[1]
Act
10 of 2013.
[2]
See
Van
Heerden v Cronwright & Others
1985 (2) SA 342
(T) at 343H;
Acting
National Director of Public Prosecutions & Others v Democratic
Alliance in re: Democratic Alliance v Acting National
Director of
Public Prosecutions & others
(19577/09)
[2016] ZAGPPHC 489 (24 June 2016) at para 25.
[3]
See:
Martin
and East (Pty) Limited v National Union Mineworkers and Others
(2014) 35 ILJ 2399 (LAC).