Maibelo and Another v Moreni Industrial Cleaning Service CC (JS204/02) [2003] ZALC 138 (5 February 2003)

Maibelo and Another v Moreni Industrial Cleaning Service CC (JS204/02) [2003] ZALC 138 (5 February 2003)

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.

Citation
[2003] ZALC 138
Parties
Applicant: Maibelo Lebhang Justice; Applicant: Kutoane Jacob; Respondent: Moreni Industrial Cleaning Services CC
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 February 2003
Case Number
JS204/02
Procedural Posture
Labour Unfair Dismissal / Trial
Outcome
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.
Judges
E Revelas
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Section 189 Procedure, Reinstatement, Retrospective Effect, Costs Award
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Section 189 Procedure Reinstatement Retrospective Effect Costs Award

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maibelo Lebhang Justice

Applicant

Kutoane Jacob

Applicant

Moreni Industrial Cleaning Services CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Unfair Dismissal / Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal of the applicants was procedurally and substantively fair under section 189 of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent complied with the procedural requirements for dismissal based on operational requirements.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to reinstatement and backpay.

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.

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.