Marques and Others v Group Five Construction (Pty) Ltd and Others (D1051/19) [2019] ZALCJHB 330; (2020) 41 ILJ 677 (LC) (25 July 2019)

Marques and Others v Group Five Construction (Pty) Ltd and Others (D1051/19) [2019] ZALCJHB 330; (2020) 41 ILJ 677 (LC) (25 July 2019)

The Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to order payment of severance pay to employees retrenched during business rescue proceedings, as this would require uplifting the statutory moratorium on legal proceedings imposed by section 133(1) of the Companies Act. The power to grant leave to proceed against a company in business rescue resides exclusively with the High Court, not the Labour Court. The applicants did not demonstrate exceptional urgency or economic hardship justifying deviation from the normal rule. The Labour Court is not the statutorily designated forum for severance pay claims unless they arise in the context of unfair dismissal disputes; such claims should ordinarily be pursued...

Citation
[2019] ZALCJHB 330
Parties
Applicant: Jose Filipe Perreira Da Silva Cristelo Marques; Applicant: Soobramoney Ramsamy Pillay; Applicant: Ngenani Caiphus Ngubo; Applicant: Msawenkosi Musa Mhlongo; Applicant: Nolan Ramsaroop; Applicant: Zesha Ramrathan; Applicant: Terry-Lloyd Estment; Respondent: Group Five Construction (Pty) Ltd (under supervision); Respondent: Peter van den Steen N.O.; Respondent: Dave Lake N.O.
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 July 2019
Case Number
D1051/19
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Payment of Severance Pay During Business Rescue Proceedings
Outcome
Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and urgency.
Judges
Lagrange
Legal Topics
Business Rescue Moratorium, Severance Pay, Jurisdiction of Labour Court, Section 133 Companies Act, Section 41 Bcea
Labour Law Civil Procedure Business Rescue Moratorium Severance Pay Jurisdiction of Labour Court Section 133 Companies Act Section 41 Bcea

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jose Filipe Perreira Da Silva Cristelo Marques

Applicant

Soobramoney Ramsamy Pillay

Applicant

Ngenani Caiphus Ngubo

Applicant

Msawenkosi Musa Mhlongo

Applicant

Nolan Ramsaroop

Applicant

Zesha Ramrathan

Applicant

Terry-Lloyd Estment

Applicant

Group Five Construction (Pty) Ltd (under supervision)

Respondent

Peter van den Steen N.O.

Respondent

Dave Lake N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Payment of Severance Pay During Business Rescue Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Labour Court have jurisdiction to order payment of severance pay to employees retrenched during business rescue proceedings?
  2. 2 Does section 133(1) of the Companies Act bar the Labour Court from entertaining such applications without the written consent of the business rescue practitioners or leave of the High Court?
  3. 3 Is the application urgent given the applicants' financial circumstances?

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to order payment of severance pay to employees retrenched during business rescue proceedings, as this would require uplifting the statutory moratorium on legal proceedings imposed by section 133(1) of the Companies Act. The power to grant leave to proceed against a company in business rescue resides exclusively with the High Court, not the Labour Court. The applicants did not demonstrate exceptional urgency or economic hardship justifying deviation from the normal rule. The Labour Court is not the statutorily designated forum for severance pay claims unless they arise in the context of unfair dismissal disputes; such claims should ordinarily be pursued...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and urgency.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • No order is made as to costs.