Mhlanga v BMW SA (JR854/02) [2002] ZALC 173 (15 October 2002)

40 Reportability

Brief Summary

Labour Law — Condonation — Review of condonation ruling — Applicant seeking to set aside ruling of CCMA regarding late referral of dispute — Delay of 6½ months deemed unacceptable by commissioner — Court finding no grounds to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the CCMA — Application dismissed.

Sneller Verbatim/HDJ
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: JR854/02
2002-10-15
In the matter between
D C MHLANGA Applicant
and
BMW SA Respondent
_______________________________________________________________
_
J U D G M E N T
_______________________________________________________________
_
REVELAS J:
1. This is an application in terms of section 168, where  
the   applicant   seeks   to   review   and   set   aside   a  
condonation   ruling  made   by  the   second  respondent,   who  
found   that  the   application  for   condonation  brought   at  
the   Commission   for   Conciliation,   Mediation   and  
Arbitration, had no merits.  
1. 1. 2. The   delay   in   question   was   6 ½   months   and   was  
received on 18 June 2001 and was referred to the CCMA

on   8   February   2002.     The   commissioner   who   heard   the  
application, found that the explanation provided by the  
applicant   for   the   lateness   of   his   referral   is  
unacceptable   in   that   he   blames   his   union   and   the  
respondent,   whose   appearance   was   delayed   between   the  
date   of   the   receipt   and   10   December   2001,   which  
provides no explanation for the delay.
3. The second respondent also found that the applicant did  
not   show   consent   and   that   the   delay   finding   was  
unacceptable.  The second respondent found, and also in  
so far as the prospects of success were concerned, that  
it   only   seems   good   in   the   absence   of   any   counter  
argument.
4. The commissioners of the CCMA are enjoined do deal with  
matters expeditiously in terms of the Labour Relations  
Act 66 of 1995.  In granting condonation they exercise  
a   discretion.     On   the   grounds   provided   for   by   the  
applicant   in   this   matter   there   are   no   grounds   upon  
which   I   am   persuaded   to   interfere   in   the   exercise   of  
the discretion of the second respondent.  
5. In the circumstances the application is dismissed.