Mahlangu v Tee-Eff Supermarket (J130/01) [2001] ZALC 73 (22 May 2001)

45 Reportability

Brief Summary

Labour Law — Arbitration award — Application to make arbitration award an order of court — Respondent opposing application on grounds of lack of awareness of proceedings and intention to apply for recission — Court noting non-compliance with court order regarding proof of service of recission application — Award made an order of court due to respondent's failure to comply and delay in enforcement by applicant.

J130/01/HVR
Sneller Verbatim/HvR
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: J130/01
2001-05-22
In the matter between
B A MAHLANGU Applicant
and
TEE-EFF SUPERMARKET Respondent
________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
________________________________________________________________
REVELAS J:
1.The applicant  applied in  terms of  section 158(1)(c)  of    Labour Relations  
Act 66 of 1995 (“the Act”) for an arbitration award made in his favour,  
dated 20 November 2000, to be made an order of court.  
2.The matter was opposed by the respondent.  
3.Mr  Malebane appeared on behalf of the respondent.  He stated that he wished  
to   oppose   the   application   on   the   basis   that   he   was   not   aware   of   the  
arbitration proceedings and that he wished to bring an application for  
the recission of the award.
4.It has been noted by judges of the Labour Court that there is a tendency  
which   is   prevalent   particularly   amongst   employers,   not   to   comply   with  
awards and to oppose matters at the last minute. 
5.This   court   would   assist   such   a   respondent   if   it   is   apparent   from   the  
evidence that the respondent indeed intended to bring in application for  
recission and show good cause.  
6.At the time the application in terms of Section 158 (1)(c) was opposed by  
1
JUDGMENT1

the respondent, Mr Malebane indicated that he had  applied for recission  
of the matter but could not provide proof thereof.  I then made an order  
to   the   effect   that   should   the   respondent   fail   to   provide   proof   of  
service of the application for recission on 8   May  2001, the matter would  
proceed by way of default.  
7.On   4   May   2001   Mr   Malebane,   on   behalf   of   the   respondent,   filed   an  
application for  recission.    There is,  however, no  proof of  service of  
this award on the Commission of Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration  
(“the CCMA”), in other words there is no proof that the CCMA   received  
the application.  The respondent therefore did not comply with the court  
order.  
8.Since there has been non­compliance with the court order and the applicant  
has waited a considerable period to enforce the award in his favour,  I  
make the following order:
1.The award dated 20 November 2000 issued by Commissioner L Dreyer is made an  
order of court.
_______________
E. Revelas