Spearpoint Bow Tools CC v Spearco Tools CC and Others (J3592/01) [2002] ZALC 160 (2 August 2002)

40 Reportability

Brief Summary

Labour Law — Joinder — Rescission of order — Applicant seeking rescission of order joining it as a party in proceedings — Court finding that applicant was not notified of hearing date, leading to absence — Order rescinded due to procedural irregularity in notification — No findings made on substantive issues of liquidity or employer status.

Sneller Verbatim/DM
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: J3592/01
DATE: 2002-08-02
In the matter between
SPEARPOINT BOW TOOLS CC Applicant
and
1ST Respondent
A VULA & 7 OTHERS 2ND to further Respondents
_______________________________________________________________
_
J U D G M E N T
_______________________________________________________________
_
REVELAS J :
1. On 18 December 2001 the Labour Court made an order in  
terms of which Spearpoint Bow Tools CC was joined as a  
party in the proceedings between A Vula and 7 Others,  
the applicants, and Spearco Tools CC.
1. 1. 2. Spearpoint Bow Tools CC now applies for rescission  
of   that  order   joining  it   as  a   party  for,   inter  alia , 
the   following   reasons.     Spearco   Tools   CC,   the   actual

former   employer   of   the   employees   against   whom   an  
arbitration   order   was   obtained,   was   liquidated   on   6  
March 2001; it is a separate legal entity and was never  
an   employee   of   the   employees.     In   my   view,   these  
considerations are not applicable as grounds to rescind  
an   order,   but   what   is   quite   plain,   and   that   is   also  
stated   in   the   founding   affidavit,   is   that   the  
respondent, Spearpoint Bow Tools CC, was absent   from  
the proceedings due to the fact that only the applicant  
was   advised  of   the  date   of  hearing   of  the   matter  and  
not any of the respondents. 
3. In these circumstances the order should be rescinded.  
4. I   make   it   plain   that   I   make   no   finding   as   to   the  
liquidity or the question as to who the real employer  
was;   that   would   be   to   interfere   with   the   judgment   of  
Jammy   AJ,   whose   finding   may   only   be   overturned   on  
appeal.  I therefore make it plain that this order was  
granted because the respondents were absent due to the  
failure   on   the   part   of   the   registrar   to   notify   the  
parties.
_______________
_
E. Revelas