Kgwete and others v MEC for Education, Sports Arts and Culture, Limpopo Province and Others (J4701/02) [2002] ZALC 195 (6 December 2002)

40 Reportability

Brief Summary

Labour Law — Urgent application — Interdict against salary deductions — Applicants, teachers, seeking to restrain deductions for unpaid leave — Court finding no urgency and alternative remedy available at CCMA — Application dismissed without costs.

Sneller Verbatim/MS
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: J4701/02
2002-12-06
In the matter between
1st Applicant
PERSONS LISTED IN ANNEXURE “PPK A” 2nd To Further
Applicant
s
and
MEC FOR EDUCATION ARTS, SPORTS AND
CULTURE LOMPOPO PROVINCE 1st Respondent
REGIONAL SENIOR MANAGER (SOUTHERN
REGION) DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
ARTS, SPORTS AND CULTURE LIMPOPO
2nd Respondent
3rd Respondent
_______________________________________________________________
_
J U D G M E N T
_______________________________________________________________

_
REVELAS, J:
1. This   is   an   urgent   application.     The   applicants   are  
staff   of   the   Mohlarutse   Secondary   School   who   are   all  
employed   by   the   first   respondent   as   teachers.     The  
applicants   have   approached   this   court   on   an   urgent  
basis,   to   obtain   an   interdict,   to   restrain   the   first  
respondent from deducting certain remuneration from the  
applicants.
2. On   the   applicants'   version,   the   first   respondent   has  
deducted money from the applicants for unpaid leave on  
five   days,   without   justification.     The   last   of   the  
alleged deductions were made in September of this year.  
It is now three months later.   The applicants further  
states   that   there   might   be   further   deductions   in  
future.  It is not apparent from the papers that there  
is any real danger of this occurring.  
3. In   my   view,   this   matter   is   not   urgent   and   the  
applicants' have an alternative remedy, namely to refer  
a   dispute   about   the   alleged   unfair   deductions   to   the  
Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration.  
The application before me has no merits insofar as the  
urgency thereof is concerned.   
4. I have been urged, on behalf of the respondent, to make

a cost order in this matter.  I decline to make a cost  
order today, since I believe that a cost order against  
the   applicants   would   not   be   beneficial,   when   the  
parties attempt to resolve this dispute at the CCMA.
5. Consequently I make the following order.  
1. The application is dismissed.
2. The costs of the application is to be determined on a  
future date after the dispute had been finalised at the  
Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration.
_______________
_
E. Revelas