CTL Group (Pty) Limited v Memela and Other (D601/00) [2003] ZALC 34; (2003) 24 ILJ 1680 (LC) (24 April 2003)

CTL Group (Pty) Limited v Memela and Other (D601/00) [2003] ZALC 34; (2003) 24 ILJ 1680 (LC) (24 April 2003)

The Labour Court held that the employer's submission, which would deny the employee payment for the period between the award of reinstatement and actual reinstatement, is untenable. Accepting such an argument would allow employers to benefit from non-compliance with court orders, which is contrary to common law and the constitutional right to fair labour practices. The court affirmed that a monetary remedy is available to employees in addition to contempt proceedings, referencing section 158(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act and prior case law. The employer's submission was accordingly rejected with costs.

Citation
[2003] ZALC 34
Parties
Applicant: CTL Group (Pty) Limited; Respondent: G F Memela; Respondent: Sheriff of the High Court, Sandton
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 April 2003
Case Number
D601/00
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Point in Limine
Outcome
The employer's submission is rejected with costs.
Judges
Pillay D
Legal Topics
Reinstatement, Contempt of Court, Monetary Remedy, Section 158 1 C Lra
Labour Law Reinstatement Contempt of Court Monetary Remedy Section 158 1 C 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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CTL Group (Pty) Limited

Applicant

G F Memela

Respondent

Sheriff of the High Court, Sandton

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Point in Limine

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the employee entitled to payment for the period between the award of reinstatement and actual reinstatement?
  2. 2 Is contempt of court the only remedy available to the employee when the employer fails to comply with a reinstatement award?
  3. 3 Can a monetary remedy be granted in addition to contempt proceedings for failure to reinstate?

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court held that the employer's submission, which would deny the employee payment for the period between the award of reinstatement and actual reinstatement, is untenable. Accepting such an argument would allow employers to benefit from non-compliance with court orders, which is contrary to common law and the constitutional right to fair labour practices. The court affirmed that a monetary remedy is available to employees in addition to contempt proceedings, referencing section 158(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act and prior case law. The employer's submission was accordingly rejected with costs.

Court Disposition

The employer's submission is rejected with costs.

Orders

  • The submission by the employer that the employee is not entitled to payment for the period between the award and actual reinstatement is rejected.
  • The employer is ordered to pay the costs of the application.