IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD AT PORT ELIZABETH
CASES NO. P158 and P159/2000
DATE: 11 AUGUST 2000
In the matter between:
DRAKE INTERNATIONAL Applicant
and
D J RAGA and R A FRANS Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON 11 AUGUST 2000
______________________________________________________________
REVELAS, J:
[1] These are two applications in terms of Sec 158(1)(g) of the Labour Relations Act No. 66 of 1995
(“LRA”) to set aside two decisions of Commissioners of the Commission for Conciliation,
Mediation and Arbitration wherein condonation for the late referral of disputes was handed down
in favour of Mr Frans and Mr Raga. I will deal with both these matters in one judgment.I do not
wish to give a long, judgment. I have read the record of the proceedings and the reasons given for
granting condonation.
1
[2] In the case of Mr Frans, who referred his matters three days out of time,
which is a rather insignificant delay, the Commissioner found that the delay “was serious”. The
Commissioner is wrong. However, he granted condonation to Mr Frans.
[3] I read the Commissioner's reasons for his findings. Though the reasons did not seem particularly
logical to me, I nonetheless do not wish to interfere with them. Since the delay in Mr Frans's case
was almost insignificant and at the stage of a condonation application where the evidence had not
been heard yet and there are no affidavits to determine the prospects of success, the failure to
deal with the prospects of success is not fatal. There can hardly be prejudice from a three day
delay and the explanation for the late referral is not unacceptable.
[4] In addition to the aforesaid, this is not an appeal. This is a review of the decision of a
Commissioner on whom the Labour Relations Act has conferred a very wide discretion and no
grounds were put before me, either in the case of Mr Raga or Mr Frans, to make a finding that the
discretion exercised in the granting of the condonations was not exercised judicially.
[5] The period within which Mr Raga referred his dispute to the CCMA was longer than that of Mr
Frans. However, the reasoning remains the same as in respect of Mr Frans, except for the time
period. The difference in the degrees of lateness is not a factor which persuade me to interfere
with the granting of condonation to him.
[6] In the circumstances both applications are DISMISSED.
2
E REVELAS
JUDGE OF THE LABOUR COURT
3