Chetty v Nissan South Africa Limited (JR914/18) [2022] ZALCJHB 279 (6 October 2022)

Chetty v Nissan South Africa Limited (JR914/18) [2022] ZALCJHB 279 (6 October 2022)

The court found that the issues raised in the application for leave to appeal had already been fully addressed in the original judgment. The court reaffirmed its findings that the referral to the CCMA was not made within the prescribed 90-day period and that the alleged unfair labour practice did not constitute continuous conduct justifying a late referral. The court held that there was no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion, nor was there any compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2022] ZALCJHB 279
Parties
Appellant: Venolan Arumagam Chetty; Respondent: Nissan South Africa Limited; Respondent: L Nowosenetz N O; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 October 2022
Case Number
JR914/18
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Mosam
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Jurisdiction of Ccma, Unfair Labour Practice, Continuous Conduct, Section 191 Lra
Labour Law Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Jurisdiction of Ccma Unfair Labour Practice Continuous Conduct Section 191 Lra

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Venolan Arumagam Chetty

Appellant

Nissan South Africa Limited

Respondent

L Nowosenetz N O

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the referral to the CCMA was made within the prescribed 90-day period.
  2. 2 Whether the alleged unfair labour practice constituted continuous conduct allowing for late referral.
  3. 3 Whether the Labour Court was bound by Labour Appeal Court decisions and required to provide reasons for any departure.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the issues raised in the application for leave to appeal had already been fully addressed in the original judgment. The court reaffirmed its findings that the referral to the CCMA was not made within the prescribed 90-day period and that the alleged unfair labour practice did not constitute continuous conduct justifying a late referral. The court held that there was no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion, nor was there any compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.