Goliath and Others v African Meter Reading (PTY) Ltd (J 90/2021) [2022] ZALCJHB 330 (17 November 2022)

Goliath and Others v African Meter Reading (PTY) Ltd (J 90/2021) [2022] ZALCJHB 330 (17 November 2022)

The applicants failed to establish that they tendered their services in accordance with the reinstatement order. The evidence did not support their claim of continuous tender from 19 September 2016 to January 2021, and some applicants had obtained alternative employment. The respondent's version that the applicants...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] ZALCJHB 330
Parties
Applicant: Karabo Goliath and 8 Others; Respondent: African Meter Reading (PTY) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 November 2022
Case Number
J 90/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment on Application for Payment of Remuneration Following Reinstatement Order
Outcome
Application dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Prinsloo
Legal Topics
Reinstatement, Arrear Wages, Basic Conditions of Employment Act, Contempt of Court, Fixed Term Contracts
Labour Law Reinstatement Arrear Wages Basic Conditions of Employment Act Contempt of Court Fixed Term Contracts

Source-derived case record

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karabo Goliath and 8 Others

Applicant

African Meter Reading (PTY) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment on Application for Payment of Remuneration Following Reinstatement Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' contracts of employment were restored pursuant to the arbitration award ordering reinstatement.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to outstanding remuneration for the period 19 September 2016 to 3 January 2021.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants tendered their services in accordance with the reinstatement order.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to establish that they tendered their services in accordance with the reinstatement order. The evidence did not support their claim of continuous tender from 19 September 2016 to January 2021, and some applicants had obtained alternative employment. The respondent's version that the applicants did not report for duty on the specified dates was accepted, as the applicants did not provide convincing rebuttal. Without actual tender and acceptance of services, the employment contracts were not revived, and no entitlement to arrear wages arose. The application for payment of remuneration was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to cost.