NUMSA and Others v Rubber General Moulders (Pty) Ltd (J3575/00) [2002] ZALC 171 (6 September 2002)

30 Reportability

Brief Summary

Labour Law — Appeal — Application for leave to appeal against order for rescission of judgment — Respondent's claim of non-receipt of papers not substantiated — Court dismissing application for rescission — Matter struck from roll due to absence of both parties at hearing for leave to appeal.

Sneller Verbatim/ssl
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: J3575/00
2002-09-06
In the matter between
1st Applicant
2nd Applicant
and
RUBBER GENERAL MOULDERS (PTY) LTD Respondent
_______________________________________________________________
_
J U D G M E N T
_______________________________________________________________
_
REVELAS J:
1. This   is   an   application   for   leave   to   appeal   against   an  
order made by myself on 13 April 2000. 
2. The respondent who came before me was the applicant in an  
application to have the order rescinded. I found that I  
could grant such an order rescinding my judgment if I was  
satisfied that the order was granted in error or in the  
absence of the parties due to no fault of their own.

3. The   legal   representative   for   the   respondent   could   put  
forward any reason why I should set aside the order. The  
explanation put forward was simply that the papers in the  
matter   filed   by   the   respondents,   (the   applicants   in   the  
main matter), were never received. This was not borne out  
by   the   faximilee   transmission   slip   attached   to   various  
notices   of   set   down   ­   which   was   conceded   ­   bear   the  
correct fax number of the respondent.
4. It was also submitted that these papers “floated around”  
at   the   respondent’s   premises.   I   found   this   to   be   an  
unacceptable   explanation   and   dismissed   the   application  
for recission and those were the reasons therefore.
5. Subsequently a notice of leave to appeal was filed.
6. My   associate   notified   the   parties   that   they   should   file  
heads   of   argument   and   I   could   decide   the   matters   in  
chambers,   alternatively,   they   could   also   put   forward  
arguments in court.
7. No heads of argument were forthcoming from the applicant  
or the respondent.
8. Subsequently,   on   notice   to   both   parties   the   matter   was  
set down for today to hear the application for leave to  
appeal   at   09:30.   No   one   arrived.   Therefore,   in   the  
absence   of   both   parties,   the   matter   is   struck   from   the  
roll.

_________________
E. Revelas