(1) Reportable: Yes/No
(2) Of interest to other Judges: Yes/No
(3) Revised
____________ ______________
Signature Date
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case No: JR2574/22
In the matter between:
RENA RAVINDER Applicant
and
NORTH-WEST UNIVERSITY – MAFIKENG CAMPUS First Respondent
COLLINS LENKWASI MAKAMA Second Respondent
COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND
ARBITRATION Third Respondent
Heard: 23 October 2025
Delivered: 13 April 2026
__________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
__________________________________________________________________
LEWIS, AJ
Introduction
[1] The Applicant, Professor Ravinder , seeks to review and set aside an
arbitration award issued by the Second Respondent (the arbitrator) on 2
October 2022 (award) under section 145(2)(a) of the Labour Relations Act
2
66 of 1995 (LRA).
The facts
[2] Professor Ravinder was employed by the First Respondent , North-West
University (the University), as a Professor at the Graduate School of
Business and Government Leadership from 1 October 2016 until his
dismissal on 4 August 2021.
[3] Between December 2019 and February 2020, Professor Ravinder attended
a total of 22 conferences in India.
[4] He submitted claims for reimbursement of expenses allegedly incurred in
attending five of those conferences.
[5] The University subsequently charged Professor Ravinder with misconduct ,
formulated as follows:
“Level B, Paragraph 10.4.4., namely:
Any act or behaviour which has an element of dishonesty and/or
misappropriation which could cause/causes detriment to the University
and/or another person.
In that you are alleged to have submitted reimbursement claims for
hotel accommodation for the period between December 2019 and
February 2020, the said claims are believed to be a misrepresentation
or fraudulent claims by yourself to the NWU.”
[6] Following disciplinary proceedings conducted between May and June 2021,
Professor Ravinder was found guilty of the charge and dismissed.
[7] Professor Ravinder referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the Third
Respondent, the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration ( the
CCMA) in terms of section 186 (1)(a) of the LRA . The dispute proceeded to
arbitration.
[8] The arbitration was conducted on various dates during June, August and
September 2022. The sole issue before the arbitrator was whether the
dismissal was substantively fair. The arbitrator found that it was.
3
[9] Professor Ravinder now seeks to review and set aside the arbitration award
in terms of section 145(2)(a) of the LRA.
The standard of review
[10] Section 145 of the Labour Relations Act1 (LRA) provides that it applies to the
review of arbitration awards of the CCMA.2
[11] The test to be applied under section 145 is clear. This Court may only
intervene if the decision reached by the arbitrator is one that a reasonable
decision-maker could not reach. In a matter such as the present one , where
the applicant relies on what are contended to be reviewable irregularities in
the assessment of the evidence, the Court must be cautious to ensure that
the line between an appeal and a review is not crossed. In Gold Fields
Mining SA (Pty) Ltd (Kloof Gold Mine) v C ommission for Conciliation,
Mediation and Arbitration and Others,
3 the Labour Appeal Court (LAC) noted
that a review court is not required to consider every factor individually,
consider how the arbitrator treated and dealt with each factor and then
determine whether a failure by the arbitrator to deal with one or more factors
amounted to a process related irregularity sufficient to set aside the award.
The LAC cautioned against adopting a piecemeal approach since a review
court must necessarily consider the totality of the available evidence.
4
Specifically, the questions for a review court to ask are whether the arbitrator
gave the parties a full opportunity to have their say in respect of the dispute,
whether the arbitrator identified the issue in dispute that he was required to
arbitrate, whether the arbitrator understood the nature of the dispute,
1 Act 66 of 1995, as amended.
2 Section 145 provides (in relevant part) as follows:
‘Review of arbitration awards
(1) Any party to a dispute who alleges a defect in any arbitr ation proceedings under the auspices
of the Commission may apply to the Labour Court for an order setting aside the arbitration
award…
…
(2) A defect referred to in subsection (1) means –
award…
…
(2) A defect referred to in subsection (1) means –
(a) that the commissioner –
(i) committed misconduct in relation to the duties of the commissioner as an arbitrator;
(ii) committed a gross irregularity in the conduct of the arbitration proceedings; or
(iii) exceeded the commissioner’s powers; or
(b) that an award has been improperly obtained.’
3 [2013] ZALAC 28; [2014] 1 BLLR 20 (LAC) (Gold Fields).
4 Gold Fields above at para 18.
4
whether he or she dealt with substantial merits of the dispute and whether
the decision is one that another decision maker could reasonably have
arrived at based on the evidence.
5 In short, when an arbitrator fails to have
regard to the material facts it is likely that he or she will arrive at a decision
that is unreasonable. Similarly, where an arbitrator fails to follow proper
process he or she will arrive at an unreasonable outcome. However, the LAC
emphasised that this is to be considered on a totality of the evidence and not
a fragmented piecemeal analysis.
6
The arbitrator’s findings are reasonable
[12] The arbitrator correctly identified the issue in dispute in determining the
substantive fairness of P rofessor Ravinder’s dismissal, namely whether his
conduct was dishonest and amounted to misappropriation. In particular, the
question was whether , during the period December 2019 to February 2020,
he submitted reimbursement claims for hotel accommodation that were
fraudulent or constituted a misrepresentation.7
[13] In determining that issue, the arbitrator adopted the following approach:
13.1 He had regard to the applicable legal principles,8 namely, that in the
employment context, a premium is placed on honesty , as dishonest
conduct undermines the trust relationship on which the employment
relationship is founded. 9 Dishonesty need not amount to a criminal
offence, but includes any act or omission involving deceit, including
false statement or misrepresentation.10
5 Ibid at para 20.
6 Ibid at para 21.
7 Arbitrator’s award at paras 6 – 7.
8 Arbitrator’s award, at para 48, citing Grogan, Dismissal (Juta & Co Ltd, 2012) at 188
9 SA Post Office v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration & Others (2011) 32 ILJ
2442 (LAC) at para 34; SAPPI Novoboard (Pty) Ltd v Bolleurs (1998) 19 ILJ 784 at para 7.
10 See SA Society of Bank Officials & Another v Standard Bank of SA & Others (2022) 43 ILJ 1794
(LAC) at para 17.
5
13.2 He further undertook a careful evaluation of the evidence by the
respective parties, which he summarised and evaluated as follows:
13.2.1 On 26 November 2019, Ms Molete 11 received an email from
Professor Ravinder requesting that accommodation be
booked for him. Upon examining the quote f or
accommodation in the amount of 25 000 Indian Rupees ,
she noted that it was for two adults and two children. She
informed Professor Ravinder that the University only paid for
its employees, and that, if his family were to accompany him,
he would be liable for the additional cost. Professor Ravinder
then telephoned her and stated that, whether the invoice
reflected accommodation for one person or four persons, the
amount would be the same. He thereafter sent an amended
invoice describing the accommodation as being for a single
person, although the amount remained unchanged. The
arbitrator found this evidence demonstrated an intention on
Professor Ravinder’s part to claim not for himself, but also
for his family. The submission of a claim for hotel
accommodation that included his family was, on that basis,
improper.
12
11 At the material time, Ms Molete was employed as an accountant in the Faculty of Economic and
Management Sciences
12 Arbitrator’s award, paras 52 – 53.
6
13.2.2 Ms Moolman 13 requested Professor Ravinder to provide
proof that he had reimbursed the relevant universities for his
accommodation, in the form of cash slips or his bank
statements. Professor Ravinder did not provide cash
receipts. In addition, Ms Moolman only saw his wife’s bank
statements during the arbitration hearing. There was
accordingly no record of the payment made by Professor
Ravinder to the various hotels. At the time, Professor
Ravinder addressed an email to her in which he stated that
he made cash payments, and that whenever he travelled, he
carried cash in the form of Dollars, Euros, Rupees and
Rands.
14
13.2.3 Mr Motara 15 investigated Professor Ravinder’s claims and
found that the relevant invoices had been paid by the
organisers of the conferences, not by Professor Ravinder .
Professor Ravinder was unable to produce any cash slips or
other proof to substantiate his assertion that he had
reimbursed them in cash
.16
13.2.4 Professor Ravinder’s version — that he paid his
accommodation in order to secure a waiver of his
registration fee — was inherently improbable, particularly in
13 At the material time, Ms Moolman’s job was to process finances for the Business School.
14 Arbitrator’s award at paras 19 – 20, 55
15 At the material time, Mr Motara was employed as the Internal Audit Manager
16 Arbitrator’s award at paras 12 – 17, 56. Mr Motara testified that this conclusion was supported by
the invoices themselves, which reflected payments by those organisers, and confirmed by
correspondence with the organisers/hotels themselves.
7
circumstances where he had been invited to attend the
conferences. Moreover, the invoices themselves reflected
that his accommodation was paid by the conference
organisers, consistent with the position in respect of the
other 17 conferences he attended.
17
13.2.5 The evidence adduced by Professor Ravinder in support of
his version — both vive voce and by way of affidavit — was
unpersuasive. It was not supported by any documentary
proof and was, in material respects, inconsistent with the
contemporaneous documentary evidence, in particular the
hotel invoices. It was also inherently improbable that
Professor Ravinder would have settled his accommodation
by reimbursing third parties in cash after checking out, rather
than paying the hotels directly.
18
[14] The arbitrator accordingly found the University’s version to be more probable
than that of Professor Ravinder, on the basis that it was consistent with the
objective, contemporaneous evidence, whereas Professor Ravinder’s
version was not. 19 On the totality of the evidence, that conclusion was
reasonable.20
The grounds of review
[15] The grounds of review impermissibly adopt a piecemeal approach to the
evidence, isolating discrete aspects for criticism while ignoring the
evidentiary matrix as a whole and, in certain instances, misconceiving the
17 Arbitrator’s award at paras 57 – 60.
18 Arbitrator’s award at paras 61 – 67.
19 Arbitrator’s award at para 67.
20 See Stellenbosch Farmers’ Winery Group and Another v Martell et Cie and Others 2003 (1) SA 11
(SCA) at para 5.
8
evidence. This is precisely the approach cautioned against by the Labour
Appeal Court, which has emphasised that a review court must assess the
totality of the evidence in determining the reasonableness of an award.21
[16] In the first ground of review, Professor Ravinder contends that the arbitrator
failed to take relevant evidence into account. He relies on Ms Molete’s
evidence that she was unable to confirm whether his family accompanied
him, and that she did not investigate this issue. This contention is misplaced.
The arbitrator did not find that Professor Ravinder ’s family in fact
accompanied him to the conference; rather, he found that Professor
Ravinder intended to claim accommodation costs in respect of them . That
finding was reasonable on the basis of Ms Molete’s evidence and the
contemporaneous documentary material. In any event, the arbitrator’s
ultimate finding of dishonesty did not turn on this issue, and any error in this
regard would not be material . It was based on the finding that Professor
Ravinder claimed reimbursement for accommodation expenses that had in
fact been paid by the organisers of the relevant conferences. On a proper
assessment of the totality of the evidence, that finding was reasonable.
[17] In the second ground of review, Professor Ravinder contends that the
arbitrator committed a reviewable irregularity by failing to consider his
evidence regarding his clean disciplinary record and his contribution to the
development of the University. That contention is unfounded. A proper
reading of the award demonstrates that the arbitrator had regard to such
evidence: he expressly referred to the evidence of Professor s Van
Romburgh and Meyer, who attested to Professor Ravinder being a hard-
working and excellent employee.
22 Moreover, the arbitrator considered these
factors in the context of sanction, and correctly recognised that, in cases
involving dishonesty, even compelling mitigating factors such as long service
involving dishonesty, even compelling mitigating factors such as long service
and a clean disciplinary record do not preclude dismissal .
23 He further had
21 Gold Fields above at para 18.
22 Arbitrator’s award at paras 23, 72.
23 Arbitrator’s award at para 69. See Bidserv Industrial Products (Pty) Ltd v Commission for
Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration & Others (2017) 38 ILJ 860 (LAC) at paras 33-36 and Standard
Bank of South Africa Ltd v v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration & Others [1998] 6
BLLR 622 (LC) at paras 40-45, on which the arbitrator correctly relied.
9
regard to Professor Van Romburgh’s evidence that Professor Ravinder’ s
dishonest conduct had destroyed the trust relationship.24
[18] In the third ground of review, Professor Ravinder contends that the arbitrator
failed to conduct the proceedings in a fair and impartial manner. In particular,
he alleges that the arbitrator unduly assisted the University’s representatives
in the presentation of their case, while failing to afford him similar assistance.
In support, he relies on an excerpt of the transcript in which the University’s
representative sought to object to evidence being given, and the arbitrator
directed him to deal with the issue in cross -examination.
25 That intervention
does not constitute assistance to the University in the presentation of its
case. On the contrary, it reflects a routine and permissible case-
management direction aimed at ensuring the orderly conduct of the
proceedings. It does not demonstrate bias, partiality, or any unfairness on
the part of the arbitrator.
[19] The grounds of review are accordingly without merit and fall to be dismissed.
Conclusion
[20] Professor Ravinder’s application to review and set aside the award is
dismissed.
[21] In relation to costs, this Court has a broad discretion in terms of section 162
of the LRA to make orders for costs according to the requirements of the law
and fairness. Unlike in the High Court, costs do not as a general rule follow
the result.
[22] No facts have been placed before this Court that would justify ordering
Professor Ravinder to pay the University ’s costs. I am therefore of the view
that each party should pay its own costs.
Order
1. The application is dismissed with each party to pay its own costs.
24 Arbitrator’s award, para 70.
25 Supplementary affidavit, paragraph 44, R: p 518, lines 3 – 21.
10
______________
N Lewis
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
11
Appearances
For the Applicant: Advocate M F Jooste
Instructed by: Weyers & Lombaard Inc
For the First Respondent: Henk Wissing (Attorney)