Mathane and Others v National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications and Others (2025/000072) [2025] ZALCJHB 6 (16 January 2025)

Mathane and Others v National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications and Others (2025/000072) [2025] ZALCJHB 6 (16 January 2025)

The application was struck off the roll for lack of urgency. The applicants failed to establish facts rendering the matter urgent or showing that substantial redress could not be obtained in the normal course. The applicants did not demonstrate a clear right to the relief sought, as the first respondent lawfully withheld remuneration for days not worked under the no-work-no-pay principle, rather than making deductions as contemplated by section 34 of the BCEA. The applicants' challenge to the implementation of the no-work-no-pay principle was unfounded, and no basis for a final interdict or refund was established. Costs were awarded against the applicants in favour of the first and second...

Citation
[2025] ZALCJHB 6
Parties
Applicant: Glenda Mathane and 133 Others; Respondent: National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications; Respondent: Acting Chief Executive Officer: Duncan Mutengwe; Respondent: Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition: Parks Tau
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 January 2025
Case Number
2025/000072
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Final Declaratory and Interdictory Relief on an Urgent Basis
Outcome
Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against applicants in favour of first and second respondents.
Judges
M Makhura
Legal Topics
No Work No Pay, Urgent Interdict, Unlawful Deductions, Basic Conditions of Employment Act, Protected Strike
Labour Law Civil Procedure No Work No Pay Urgent Interdict Unlawful Deductions Basic Conditions of Employment Act Protected Strike

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

Parties

Glenda Mathane and 133 Others

Applicant

National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications

Respondent

Acting Chief Executive Officer: Duncan Mutengwe

Respondent

Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition: Parks Tau

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Final Declaratory and Interdictory Relief on an Urgent Basis

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application is urgent and should be heard on an urgent basis.
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent's withholding of remuneration constitutes unlawful deductions contrary to section 34 of the BCEA.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to a final interdict and refund of withheld remuneration pending mediation.

Ratio Decidendi

The application was struck off the roll for lack of urgency. The applicants failed to establish facts rendering the matter urgent or showing that substantial redress could not be obtained in the normal course. The applicants did not demonstrate a clear right to the relief sought, as the first respondent lawfully withheld remuneration for days not worked under the no-work-no-pay principle, rather than making deductions as contemplated by section 34 of the BCEA. The applicants' challenge to the implementation of the no-work-no-pay principle was unfounded, and no basis for a final interdict or refund was established. Costs were awarded against the applicants in favour of the first and second...

Court Disposition

Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against applicants in favour of first and second respondents.

Orders

  • The application is struck off the roll for lack of urgency.
  • The 134 applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the first and second respondents, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.