Maibelo and Another v Moreni Industrial Cleaning Service CC (JS204/02) [2003] ZALC 138 (5 February 2003)
- Citation
- [2003] ZALC 138
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court
- Panel
- E Revelas
- Case number
- JS204/02
More details
- Court
- Labour Court
- Panel
- E Revelas
- Case number
- JS204/02
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the respondent failed to comply with the procedural requirements of section 189 of the Labour Relations Act and did not provide a fair reason for the dismissal of the applicants. In the absence of any opposition or evidence from the respondent, and based on the uncontested evidence of the applicants, the court held that the dismissals were both procedurally and substantively unfair. The applicants were entitled to reinstatement on terms no less favourable than those prior to dismissal, with retrospective effect, subject to a maximum of 12 months' backpay. Costs were awarded against the respondent.
Court disposition
The applicants' dismissals were declared both procedurally and substantively unfair. The applicants are to be reinstated with retrospective effect, and the respondent is ordered to pay costs.
Orders
- The dismissal of the first and second applicants on 30 April 2001 is declared both procedurally and substantively unfair.
- The respondent is ordered to reinstate the first and second applicants on terms and conditions no less favourable than those prior to dismissal, with retrospective effect. The amount of backpay may not exceed 12 months' remuneration.
- The respondent is ordered to pay the applicants' costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Maibelo Lebhang Justice
Applicant Counsel: Mr MadumoKutoane Jacob
ApplicantMoreni Industrial Cleaning Services CC
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Maximum Backpay Period: ZAR 12
03
Procedural history
Posture
Labour Unfair Dismissal / Trial
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the dismissal of the applicants was procedurally and substantively fair under section 189 of the Labour Relations Act.
- 02
Whether the respondent complied with the procedural requirements for dismissal based on operational requirements.
- 03
Whether the applicants are entitled to reinstatement and backpay.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants argued that their dismissals were effected without compliance with the procedural requirements of section 189 of the Labour Relations Act. They contended that no fair procedure was followed and that the respondent failed to provide a fair reason for their dismissal. The applicants sought reinstatement with retrospective effect and payment of costs.
- Respondent
- The respondent did not oppose the matter and failed to present any evidence or argument to justify the dismissals or demonstrate compliance with section 189 of the Labour Relations Act.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, section 189
The employer bears the onus of proving that a dismissal was for a fair reason and that fair procedure was followed in terms of section 189 of the Labour Relations Act.
- 02
Maibelo and Another v Moreni Industrial Cleaning Service CC (JS204/02) [2003] ZALC 138
Where an employer fails to oppose proceedings or present evidence, the court may find the dismissal both procedurally and substantively unfair.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the respondent failed to comply with the procedural requirements of section 189 of the Labour Relations Act and did not provide a fair reason for the dismissal of the applicants. In the absence of any opposition or evidence from the respondent, and based on the uncontested evidence of the applicants, the court held that the dismissals were both procedurally and substantively unfair. The applicants were entitled to reinstatement on terms no less favourable than those prior to dismissal, with retrospective effect, subject to a maximum of 12 months' backpay. Costs were awarded against the respondent.
Obiter and limits
- The respondent's failure to participate in the proceedings or respond to notices served is noted as a disregard for the procedural obligations imposed by the Labour Relations Act.
- Employers must be aware that the onus to justify dismissals and comply with statutory procedures is strictly enforced by the Labour Court.
Court disposition
The applicants' dismissals were declared both procedurally and substantively unfair. The applicants are to be reinstated with retrospective effect, and the respondent is ordered to pay costs.
- The dismissal of the first and second applicants on 30 April 2001 is declared both procedurally and substantively unfair.
- The respondent is ordered to reinstate the first and second applicants on terms and conditions no less favourable than those prior to dismissal, with retrospective effect. The amount of backpay may not exceed 12 months' remuneration.
- The respondent is ordered to pay the applicants' 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
Sneller Verbatim/MS
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH
AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: JS204/02
2003-02-05
In the matter between
MAIBELO LEBHANG JUSTICE 1st Applicant
KUTOANE JACOB 2nd Applicant
and
MOREMI INDUSTRIAL CLEANING
SERVICES CC Respondent
________________
J U D G M E N T
REVELAS, J:
The services of the first and second applicants were terminated for the ostensible operational requirements of the respondent, who has elected not to oppose this matter, despite the fact that there are several notices being served on it.
The respondent, as the employer, has the onus of proving that the dismissal was for a fair reason and that it had complied with the provisions of section 189, of the Labour Relations Act 66, of 1995 as amended ("the Act"). On the evidence presented by Mr Madumo, the first applicant in this matter, it is apparent that no fair procedure was followed. Futher in the absence of the respondent, it was also not proved that there was fair reason for the dismissal.
I therefore find that the dismissal of the first and second applicants is both procedurally and substantively unfair.
In the circumstances I make an order to the effect that:
1. The dismissal of the first and second respondent, on 30 April 2001, was both procedurally and substantively unfair.
2. The respondent is to reinstate the first and second applicants, on terms and conditions no less favourable to them than those that would applied, were it not for the unfair dismissals. The reinstatement is to be with retrospective effect. The amount of backpay may not exceed 12 months remuneration.
3. The respondent is to pay the applicant's costs in this matter.
____
E. Revelas
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.