Pillay and Others v Mobile Telephone Networks (Proprietary) Limited (D377/13) [2017] ZALCD 11 (4 May 2017)

Pillay and Others v Mobile Telephone Networks (Proprietary) Limited (D377/13) [2017] ZALCD 11 (4 May 2017)

The court held that, following the Labour Appeal Court's judgment, the applicants' employment with the respondent continued uninterrupted from 1 December 2010 under section 197 of the Labour Relations Act. The applicants were not required to tender their services anew, as the referral of the dispute to the Labour Court constituted sufficient tender if necessary. The respondent's defences regarding the need for oral evidence and prescription were rejected. The debt for remuneration only became due upon the Labour Appeal Court's judgment, so prescription did not apply to the period claimed. Mora interest was only payable from the date of the Labour Appeal Court judgment. The respondent was...

Citation
[2017] ZALCD 11
Parties
Applicant: Somahkhanti Pillay & 37 Others; Respondent: Mobile Telephone Networks (Proprietary) Limited
Court
Labour Court Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 May 2017
Case Number
D377/13
Procedural Posture
Specific Performance Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application granted in favour of the applicants.
Judges
Gush
Legal Topics
Section 197 Transfer, Specific Performance, Prescription, Mora Interest
Labour Law Civil Procedure Section 197 Transfer Specific Performance Prescription Mora Interest

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Somahkhanti Pillay & 37 Others

Applicant

Mobile Telephone Networks (Proprietary) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Specific Performance Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to remuneration from 1 December 2010 to 21 April 2015 following a section 197 transfer.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants were required to tender their services to the respondent to claim remuneration.
  3. 3 Whether any portion of the applicants' claim has prescribed under the Prescription Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, following the Labour Appeal Court's judgment, the applicants' employment with the respondent continued uninterrupted from 1 December 2010 under section 197 of the Labour Relations Act. The applicants were not required to tender their services anew, as the referral of the dispute to the Labour Court constituted sufficient tender if necessary. The respondent's defences regarding the need for oral evidence and prescription were rejected. The debt for remuneration only became due upon the Labour Appeal Court's judgment, so prescription did not apply to the period claimed. Mora interest was only payable from the date of the Labour Appeal Court judgment. The respondent was...

Court Disposition

Application granted in favour of the applicants.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to pay the applicants the remuneration due to them in accordance with their contracts of employment for the period 1 December 2010 up to and including 21 April 2015.
  • The calculation of the quantum of the remuneration is to be based on the principles applied by respondent to the calculation of the amount of the tender, accepted by the applicants, in respect of the remuneration payable to the applicants for the period from 22 April 2015 to 5 July 2016.