THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case no: 2025-051769
In the matter between:
THARISA MINERALS (PTY) LTD Applicant
and
NATIONAL UNION OF MINEWORKERS First Respondent
THE PERSONS WHOSE NAMES ARE LISTED IN
ANNEXURE “A” HERETO First Respondent
Heard: 31 July 2025
Delivered: 4 August 2025
Summary: Return day – applicant seeking a final order to interdict strike
which has ceased, resulting in the loss of employment by some of the workers
– Dismissed employees not in any position to threaten the interests of the
applicant – Confirmation of the order will not serve intended purpose – Where
there is no strike action, the rule nisi stands to be discharged.
JUDGMENT
2
PHAKEDI, AJ
Introduction
[1] This is an opposed application seeking an order confirming the order obtained
in favour of the applicant on 15 April 2025. The specific parts of the order read as
follows:
‘1. …
2. An interim order is calling upon the second and further respondents to
show cause 9 May 2025 at 10h00 or so soon thereafter as the matter may be
heard why an order should not be made in the following terms:
2.1 Declaring the strike by the second and further respondents which
commenced at 06h00 on 14 April 2025 ("the Strike") to be an unprotected
strike as contemplated in section 68 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995
("the LRA");
2.2 Interdicting and restraining the Individual second and further
respondents from participating in the Strike;
2.3 Interdicting and restraining the second and further respondents from
encouraging and/or inciting other employees of the applicant from
participating in the Strike.
3. Directing that the relief set out in prayers 2.1 to 2.3 above shall operate
as an interim order with immediate effect pending the finalisation of this
application.’
[2] The applicant argued that the nisi should be confirmed in the interests of
giving certainty to the parties. This is because the employees might embark on an
unprotected strike again, and this will necessitate the applicant to once again
approach the court on an urgent basis seeking the same relief. It was argued further
that confirmation of paragraph 2.1 above will not in any way give the applicant an
unfair advantage during trial , as the trial court is not bound by the decision of the
court declaring the strike unprotected.
3
[3] The second to further respondent argued that the above orders should be
discharged on the basis that the alleged strike action ceased on 14 April 2025, and
the employees who were meant to work night shift on the day reported for duty , and
some employees were disciplined and subsequently dismissed.
[4] It was submitted further that the confirmation of the order would serve no
purpose as the issues had become moot and/or academic due to fact that the
applicant has dismissed some of the workers listed as further respondents and they
are not in a position to commit the acts prohibited in paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3 of the
order obtained on 15 April 2025.
Analysis and evaluation
[5] In terms of section 68 (1) of the Labour Relations Act
1 (LRA), this Court has
exclusive jurisdiction to grant an interdict or order to restrain a strike or conduct in
contemplation or furtherance of a strike. From the provisions of the section, it is
undeniable that the powers of the Labour Court to interdict or restrain arise only in an
instance where there is a strike action or conduct in furtherance of a strike action. In
this matter, the interim interdict achieved its purpose, and a perpetual interdict will
trample upon the constitutional rights of the respondents.
[6] The Constitutional Court in Commercial Stevedoring Agricultural and Allied
Workers’ Union and O thers v Oak Valley Estates (Pty) Ltd and Another
2 ably
restated the law on interdicts to be:
‘…Thus, for an interdict to be granted, it must be shown, on a balance of
probabilities (taking into account the Plascon -Evans rule, where final relief is
sought on motion), that unless restrained by an interdict, the respondent will
continue committing an injury against the applicant or that it is reasonably
apprehended that the respondent will cause such an injury.’
[7] This court has considered submissions by both parties , and it is not satisfied
that any of the respondents, particularly those who have been dismissed, will
that any of the respondents, particularly those who have been dismissed, will
1 Act 66 of 1995 as emended.
2 [2022] 6 BLLR 487 (CC) at para 19.
4
continue participating, encouraging and inciting other employees of the applicant to
commit unlawful acts in furtherance of a strike. With the strike action having ceased
and some of the employees already dismissed, the confirmation of the rule nisi will
not serve any purpose.
[8] Similarly, the Labour Court in Contracta Force Corporate Solutions (Pty) Ltd v
National Union of Public Service & Allied Workers & others
3 declined to confirm the
rule nisi on the return day and held that:
‘I am of the view that a court order should serve the purpose for which it was
granted. The rule nisi was granted to interdict unlawful conduct pending the
return day. On the return day it should either be discharged or confirmed
based on the conduct which resulted in it being issued. Any disputes arising
from the unprotected strike action should be resolved in their appropriate fora.
An employer does not need a court order declaring strike action unprotected
before taking disciplinary action against employees who participated in that
strike and compensation against those employees for losses resulting from
their unlawful conduct. I could find no legal basis for granting the declaratory
order. The declaratory order will put the applicant at an advantage and
prejudice the second and further respondents. As the need for the interdict
has fallen away, the rule nisi must be discharged.’
[9] Costs in the Labour Court are regulated in terms of section 162 (1) of the LRA
when the litigant before the court is relying on any of the provisions of the Act . In this
matter, it is in the interests of fairness that each party must be burdened with its own
costs.
[10] In the result, the following order is made:
Order
1. The rule nisi issued on 15 April 2025 is discharged in its entirety.
2. There is no order as to costs.
3 (2023) 44 ILJ 558 (LC) at para 7.
5
GC Phakedi
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
Appearances:
For the Applicant: Adv MJ Van As with FA Darby
Instructed by: SCI Attorneys Inc
For Second Respondent: Adv Dlamini
Instructed by: Ngidi Inc Attorneys