Harrisawak v La Farge (South Africa) (D353/2000) [2001] ZALC 35; [2001] 6 BLLR 614 (LC); (2001) 22 ILJ 1395 (LC) (1 March 2001)
- Citation
- [2001] ZALC 35
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court
- Panel
- Pillay
- Case number
- D353/2000
More details
- Court
- Labour Court
- Panel
- Pillay
- Case number
- D353/2000
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Labour Court found that it has jurisdiction to make a settlement agreement relating to an employment dispute an order of court under section 158(1)(c) of the LRA, even if the agreement was concluded without the direct intervention of the CCMA, provided the dispute was pending before the CCMA at the time of settlement. However, the application was dismissed because, on the applicant's own version, he had tendered his services and they were accepted, resulting in a new contract of employment. The subsequent termination of that contract constituted a new cause of action, and the enforcement of the original settlement agreement was no longer appropriate.
Court disposition
Application dismissed.
Orders
- The application is dismissed.
- There is no order as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Ramlall Harrisawak
Applicant Counsel: Mr MacGregorLa Farge (South Africa)
Respondent Counsel: Mr Lawrence03
Procedural history
Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Make Oral Settlement Agreement an Order of Court Under Section 158(1)(c) of the Lra.
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to make a private settlement agreement an order of court under section 158(1)(c) of the LRA.
- 02
Whether the application should be dismissed because the applicant's tender of services and acceptance created a new cause of action.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that the oral settlement agreement, which related to his employment dispute, should be made an order of court under section 158(1)(c) of the LRA, even though it was not entered into under the auspices of the CCMA. He contended that the agreement was reached while the dispute was pending before the CCMA and therefore fell within the Labour Court's jurisdiction.
- Respondent
- The respondent submitted that the settlement agreement was a private agreement not determined by the CCMA at conciliation or arbitration, and thus should be enforced in the civil courts. The respondent argued that the cause of action arose from the agreement itself, not from the employment relationship, and that section 158(1)(c) does not confer jurisdiction on the Labour Court in such circumstances.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Labour Relations Act No 66 of 1995, section 158(1)(c)
Section 158(1)(c) of the LRA empowers the Labour Court to make any arbitration award or any settlement agreement, other than a collective agreement, an order of court.
- 02
Labour Relations Act No 66 of 1995
The stated purpose of the LRA is to provide effective dispute resolution in labour disputes, including the provision of services by personnel competent and qualified to resolve such disputes.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Labour Court found that it has jurisdiction to make a settlement agreement relating to an employment dispute an order of court under section 158(1)(c) of the LRA, even if the agreement was concluded without the direct intervention of the CCMA, provided the dispute was pending before the CCMA at the time of settlement. However, the application was dismissed because, on the applicant's own version, he had tendered his services and they were accepted, resulting in a new contract of employment. The subsequent termination of that contract constituted a new cause of action, and the enforcement of the original settlement agreement was no longer appropriate.
Obiter and limits
- The points raised in limine were novel and the applicant was bona fide in bringing the application, justifying no order as to costs.
- The interpretation of section 158(1)(c) should not be unduly restrictive, as the section uses the word 'any' before 'settlement agreement'.
Court disposition
Application dismissed.
- The application is dismissed.
- There is no order as to costs.
Source and reliance status
Labour Court
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Labour Court
Judgment
D353/00-CRB/CD - 3 - JUDGMENT
CASE NO : D353/2000 Revised/Reportable
DATE : 1 March 2001
RAMLALL HARRISAWAK versus LA FARGE (SOUTH AFRICA)
JUDGMENT
PILLAY J
[1] This is an application in terms of section 158(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act No 66 of 1995, (the "LRA") to have an oral settlement agreement made an order of court. There are substantial disputes of fact. However, the parties are agreed that the points raised in limine can be dealt with on the facts that are either common cause or on the basis of the applicant's case.
[2] The first point in limine is that the settlement agreement was not entered into under the auspices of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA). Hence, it was submitted, the Court does not have jurisdiction.
[3] It is common cause that the applicant had referred his dismissal dispute to the CCMA for conciliation which was unsuccessful.
[4] Before arbitration, the parties entered into a settlement. The terms of the settlement on the applicant's version was that the applicant would be employed on a twelve-month fixed term contract. The settlement occurred without the direct intervention of the CCMA. In the circumstances, Mr Lawrence submitted for the respondent, it was a private agreement not determined by the CCMA at conciliation or arbitration and should therefore be enforced in the civil courts as the cause of action arose from the agreement itself and not from the employer/ employee relationship. (Du Toit et al, 3rd edition, at page 582.) Support for this view cannot be found in section 158(1)(c) which reads:
"The Labour Court may make any arbitration award or any settlement agreement other than a collective agreement an order of court."
[5] The interpretation that Mr Lawrence seeks to place on section 158(1)(c) is restrictive and not justified by the use of the words "any" before the word "settlement" in the section. Furthermore, the settlement agreement relates to the employment relationship. The stated purpose of the LRA is to provide effective dispute resolution in labour disputes. That includes the provision of services by personnel competent and qualified to resolve labour disputes. Moreover, the dispute at the time the settlement agreement was entered into was pending as an arbitration before the CCMA.
[6] In the circumstances, the Court has jurisdiction to hear a dispute relating to the enforcement of the settlement agreement about an employment dispute concluded without the direct intervention of the CCMA.
[7] As a result of the settlement agreement, the applicant tendered his services which were accepted. Thereafter, the contract of employment was terminated. The facts that led to the termination of the contract are in dispute. Mr McGregor conceded that it was immaterial who was responsible for the subsequent breach of the agreement for the purposes of determining the second point in limine.
[8] The second point in limine was that the application falls to be dismissed as, on the applicant's version, he tendered his services which were accepted; what occurred thereafter was a new cause of action.
[9] On this ground I find in favour of the respondent. In the circumstances the application is dismissed.
[10] The Court has considered the submissions relating to costs. The points raised in limine are novel. The applicant was bona fide in bringing this application. In the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.
JUDGE PILLAY
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Revised/Reportable
HELD AT DURBAN Case No D353/2000 In the matter between:
RAMLALL HARRISAWAK Applicant and LA FARGE (SOUTH AFRICA) Respondent
PRESIDING
OFFICER JUDGE PILLAY FOR APPLICANT MR MacGREGOR Deneys Reitz Inc
FOR
RESPONDENT MR LAWRENCE Garlicke & Bousfield Inc
JUDGMENT 1 MARCH 2001
SNELLER RECORDINGS (PTY) LTD
DURBAN TEL: 031-266-5452 FAX: 031-266-5459
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Revised/Reportable
HELD AT DURBAN Case No D353/2000
In the matter between:
RAMLALL HARRISAWAK Applicant
and
LA FARGE (SOUTH AFRICA) Respondent
PRESIDING
OFFICER JUDGE PILLAY
FOR APPLICANT MR MacGREGOR
Deneys Reitz Inc
FOR
RESPONDENT MR LAWRENCE
Garlicke & Bousfield Inc
JUDGMENT 1 MARCH 2001
SNELLER RECORDINGS (PTY) LTD
DURBAN
TEL: 031-266-5452
FAX: 031-266-5459
3
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.