About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Cape Town Labour Court, Cape Town
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Cape Town Labour Court, Cape Town
>>
2025
>>
[2025] ZALCCT 75
|
|
Bengane v Department of Statistics South Africa (2025/140928) [2025] ZALCCT 75 (28 August 2025)
THE
LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN
Not
Reportable
Case
No: 2025-140928
In
the matter between:
LANDILE
BENGANE
Applicant
and
DEPARTMENT
OF STATISTICS SOUTH AFRICA
Respondent
Heard:
27 August 2025
Date of Judgment:
This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties’ legal representatives
by email, publication on the
Labour Court website and release to SAFLII. The date and time for
handing down judgment is deemed
to be 10h00 on 29 August 2025.
JUDGMENT
DE KOCK, AJ
Introduction
[1]
This matter comes before the court as an urgent application in
which the applicant seeks a variety of different forms of relief.
Before addressing the relief that is sought, it is necessary to
briefly refer to the previous two occasions when the application
was
heard by this court. The application was firstly enrolled by the
applicant, via case lines, for 20 August 2025. The allocation
of a
court date, as this court understands, is now left for applicants to
determine. The application was heard by Gandidze J and
was struck off
the roll due to lack of a service affidavit.
[2]
The
applicant, thereafter, loaded a service affidavit onto case line and
enrolled the application for 22 August 2025. On 22 August
2025,
Gandidze J again heard the application. This time the application was
struck from the roll due to a lack of urgency. The
court understands
this second order to relate to the applicant’s failure to
comply with section 68(2) of the Labour Relations
Act
[1]
(LRA) in that the applicant failed to give at least 48 hours’
notice and not that the application was struck from the roll
after a
consideration of the requirement to show urgency in terms of Rule 38
of the Labour Court Rules.
[3]
The applicant then, for the third time, enrolled the
application for 27 August 2025. The court informed the applicant that
the second
order will be accepted as relating to non-compliance with
section 68(2) and not that an order was made in respect of urgency in
respect of Rule 38, and the applicant was invited to address this
court on why the relief sought by him is urgent.
Relief sought
[4]
The applicant seeks the following relief:
a.
Directing the respondent to release the
“re-called” salary of 15th August 2025 with immediate
effect.
b.
Directing the respondent to pay all the
deductions deducted from the month November 2024 till to date that
were deducted from the
salary of the applicant with interest and with
immediate effect.
c.
Directing the respondent to pay the June
2024 salary with interest.
d.
Directing the respondent to implement
accelerated grade progression effectively as from 2020.
e.
To interdict the respondent to continue
with envisaged suspension and disciplinary hearing process in respect
of Protected Disclosure.
[5]
The applicant agreed during submissions
made in court, and after this court explained the requirement of
urgency and what urgency
entails, that the urgent relief that he
seeks is in relation to the recall of the 15 August 2025 salary. The
court explained why
the remaining relief sought cannot be regarded as
urgent, and in respect of interdicting the suspension and
disciplinary hearing,
that the applicant must follow the normal
procedures provided for in the LRA. The court will therefore only
address the urgency
with reference to the recalled 15 August 2025
salary.
Urgency
[6]
The court, having considered the
applicant’s submissions, finds that the application could
possibly be regarded as urgent
in relation to the recall of the 15
August 2025. The applicant acted with haste in approaching the court
after the recall of the
salary. However, even if the requirement of
urgency has been met, that does not lead to the conclusion that the
application must
be heard on an urgent basis. The applicant must also
show that there is no other alternative relief available, and that he
will
suffer irreparable harm should the order not be granted.
Alternative remedy
[7]
This court is unable to find that the
applicant does not have any alternative remedy available to him. In
the event of non-payment
of a salary, all employees have the right to
pursue a contractual claim either via the CCMA, bargaining council
having jurisdiction,
Labour Court or the High Court. There is no
reason why such a claim must be determined on an urgent basis, as
should this be allowed,
it will open a floodgate of urgent
applications before this court. There must be an imminent threat of
danger, or irreparable harm
directly linked to the recall of the
salary failing which this court cannot entertain the urgent
application.
Irreparable harm or
imminent danger
[8]
The applicant has failed to show that he
will suffer irreparable harm if the urgent application is not
granted. The applicant cannot
skip the que, so to speak, and seek
urgent relief in respect of the non-payment, or as it is referred to
in this application the
recall of the 15 August 2025 salary. This
court understands the applicant’s frustrations regarding the
recall of the 15 August
2025 salary. However, the requirements for
urgent applications must be met before this court can assist the
applicant and, in this
case, the applicant failed to meet the
requirements to obtain final interdictory relief in respect of the
recall of the 15 August
2025 salary. In any event, as it stands, it
was not the full salary that was recalled, but certain deductions
made. The applicant
is entitled to approach this court on a
contractual dispute regarding any alleged unlawful deductions made
from his salary. This
court is not on a position to find that the
applicant has made out a clear case in respect of the unlawful of the
deductions.
[9]
In the premises, the following order is
made:
Order
1.
The application for final interdictory
relief is dismissed.
2.
The applicant may institute legal
proceedings in terms of the Rules of this court to challenge the
deductions from his 15 August
2025 salary.
3.
No order is made as to costs.
C. de Kock
Acting Judge of the
Labour Court of South Africa
Appearances:
For the
Applicant:
L Bengane
For the
Respondent: No appearance
[1]
Act 66 of 1995, as amende