Sneller Verbatim/rs
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: JR1407/02
2002-12-04
In the matter between
BENJAMIN MOTLOUNG Applicant
and
THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,
MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION 1st Respondent
L. H. CELLIER (COMMISSIONER) 2nd Respondent
3rd Respondent
_______________________________________________________________
_
J U D G M E N T
_______________________________________________________________
_
REVELAS, J:
1. The applicant was dismissed by the respondent on the 6th of
March 2002 and referred the dispute to the Commission for
Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration on the 2nd of June in other
words, at that stage the referral was 12 days out of time.
1. 2. The referral was noted by the applicant's attorneys who
referred a defective referral at the end of April 2000. According
to the commissioner who heard the condonation application the
applicant gave no explanation for a subsequent two months'
delay. The commissioner made a ruling which reads as follows:
1. "The length of the delay is excessive and the explanation
has no merit. The applicant's legal representatives' tardiness
is not acceptable. The failure to explain the two months' delay
is equally unacceptable and the a basic omission in this
application on the vague submission much regarding the
dismissal I am not convinced that the applicant's prospects of
success are good. Condonation under the circumstances is
denied.”
3. The applicant has now brought an application to review and set
aside the ruling of the commissioner. The applicant's papers are
completed by someone else, and not by him. The applicant
stated that he is unable to write and asked a lady at the CCMA to
fill in his application for condonation, but she did not write down
all the details.
4. It is apparent from the condonation ruling that the commissioner
hardly referred to any facts before him in coming to the finding,
in which he deprived the applicant of all relief. I have read the
affidavit of the applicant regarding his dismissal. There are facts
therein which appears to have been in front of the commissioner,
but not considered, such as the applicant's prospects of success
which seem good. In the circumstances I do not think that the
commissioner applied his mind to the facts before him.
5. In the circumstances I make the following order:
1. 1. The condonation ruling dated 15 July 2002 under case
number GA11265 of 2000 is set aside and substituted with the
following. Condonation for the late referral is granted.
_________________
E. Revelas