Maibelo and Another v Moreni Industrial Cleaning Service CC (JS204/02) [2003] ZALC 138 (5 February 2003)

55 Reportability

Brief Summary

Labour Law — Unfair Dismissal — Procedural and substantive unfairness — Applicants' services terminated by respondent for operational requirements — Respondent failing to oppose matter and prove fair reason or procedure for dismissal — Court finding dismissal both procedurally and substantively unfair — Order for reinstatement with backpay not exceeding 12 months remuneration.

Sneller Verbatim/MS
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: JS204/02
2003-02-05
In the matter between
1st Applicant
2nd Applicant
and
MOREMI INDUSTRIAL CLEANING
SERVICES CC Respondent
_______________________________________________________________
_
J U D G M E N T
_______________________________________________________________
_
REVELAS, J:
1. The   services   of   the   first   and   second   applicants   were  
terminated for the ostensible operational requirements of  
the   respondent,   who   has   elected   not   to   oppose   this  
matter,   despite   the   fact   that   there   are   several   notices  
being served on it.
2. The respondent, as the employer, has the onus of proving

that the dismissal was for a fair reason and that it had  
complied   with   the   provisions   of   section   189,   of   the  
Labour Relations Act 66, of 1995 as amended ("the Act").  
On   the   evidence   presented   by   Mr   Madumo,   the   first  
applicant   in   this   matter,   it   is   apparent   that   no   fair  
procedure   was   followed.   Futher   in   the   absence   of   the  
respondent,   it   was   also   not   proved   that   there   was   fair  
reason for the dismissal.
3. I   therefore   find   that   the   dismissal   of   the   first   and  
second applicants is both procedurally and substantively  
unfair.  
4. In the circumstances I make an order to the effect that:
1. The dismissal of the first and second respondent, on 30  
April   2001,   was   both   procedurally   and   substantively  
unfair.
2. The   respondent   is   to   reinstate   the   first   and   second  
applicants, on terms and conditions no less favourable  
to them than those that would applied, were it not for  
the unfair dismissals.  The reinstatement is to be with  
retrospective   effect.     The   amount   of   backpay   may   not  
exceed 12 months remuneration.
3. The respondent is to pay the applicant's costs in this  
matter.
_______________

_
E. Revelas