D353/00-CRB/CD- 1 - JUDGMENT
CASE NO : D353/2000 Revised/Reportable
DATE : 1 March 2001
RAMLALL HARRISAWAK versus LA FARGE (SOUTH AFRICA)
JUDGMENT
PILLAY J
[1] This is an application in terms of section 158(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act No
66 of 1995, (the "LRA") to have an oral settlement agreement made an order of
court. There are substantial disputes of fact. However, the parties are agreed
that the points raised in limine can be dealt with on the facts that are either
common cause or on the basis of the applicant's case.
[2] The first point in limine is that the settlement agreement was not entered into
under the auspices of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
(CCMA). Hence, it was submitted, the Court does not have jurisdiction.
[3] It is common cause that the applicant had referred his dismissal dispute to the
CCMA for conciliation which was unsuccessful.
[4] Before arbitration, the parties entered into a settlement. The terms of the
settlement on the applicant's version was that the applicant would be employed
on a twelve-month fixed term contract. The settlement occurred without the
direct intervention of the CCMA. In the circumstances, Mr Lawrence submitted for
the respondent, it was a private agreement not determined by the CCMA at
conciliation or arbitration and should therefore be enforced in the civil courts as
the cause of action arose from the agreement itself and not from the employer/
employee relationship. (Du Toit et al, 3rd edition, at page 582.) Support for this
view cannot be found in section 158(1)(c) which reads:
"The Labour Court may make any arbitration award or any settlement agreement
other than a collective agreement an order of court."
[5] The interpretation that Mr Lawrence seeks to place on section 158(1)(c) is
1
D353/00-CRB/CD- 2 - JUDGMENT
restrictive and not justified by the use of the words "any" before the word
"settlement" in the section. Furthermore, the settlement agreement relates to the
employment relationship. The stated purpose of the LRA is to provide effective
dispute resolution in labour disputes. That includes the provision of services by
personnel competent and qualified to resolve labour disputes. Moreover, the
dispute at the time the settlement agreement was entered into was pending as an
arbitration before the CCMA.
[6] In the circumstances, the Court has jurisdiction to hear a dispute relating to the
enforcement of the settlement agreement about an employment dispute
concluded without the direct intervention of the CCMA.
[7] As a result of the settlement agreement, the applicant tendered his services which
were accepted. Thereafter, the contract of employment was terminated. The
facts that led to the termination of the contract are in dispute. Mr McGregor
conceded that it was immaterial who was responsible for the subsequent breach
of the agreement for the purposes of determining the second point in limine.
[8] The second point in limine was that the application falls to be dismissed as, on the
applicant's version, he tendered his services which were accepted; what occurred
thereafter was a new cause of action.
[9] On this ground I find in favour of the respondent. In the circumstances the
application is dismissed.
[10] The Court has considered the submissions relating to costs. The points raised in
limine are novel. The applicant was bona fide in bringing this application. In the
circumstances, there is no order as to costs.
JUDGE PILLAY
2
D353/00-CRB/CD- 3 - JUDGMENT
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Revised/Reportable
HELD AT DURBAN Case No D353/2000
In the matter between:
RAMLALL HARRISAWAK Applicant
and
LA FARGE (SOUTH AFRICA) Respondent
PRESIDING OFFICER JUDGE PILLAY
FOR APPLICANT MR MacGREGOR
Deneys Reitz Inc
FOR RESPONDENT MR LAWRENCE
Garlicke & Bousfield Inc
JUDGMENT
1 MARCH 2001
SNELLER RECORDINGS (PTY) LTD
DURBAN
TEL:- 031-266-5452
FAX:- 031-266-5459
3