Enforce Guarding (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Labour and Others (D236/04 , D292/04) [2005] ZALC 40; (2005) 26 ILJ 1072 (LC); [2005] 4 BLLR 321 (LC) (21 January 2005)

Enforce Guarding (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Labour and Others (D236/04 , D292/04) [2005] ZALC 40; (2005) 26 ILJ 1072 (LC); [2005] 4 BLLR 321 (LC) (21 January 2005)

The applicant failed to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the late filing of its appeal against the compliance order. The human resources manager was aware of the refusal of the variation application prior to service of the compliance order and neglected his duty by not reading the document. The explanation offered was not credible and did not satisfy the requirements for condonation. Furthermore, the review application was brought prematurely, as the applicant had not exhausted internal remedies as required by section 7(2)(a) of PAJA. The statute provided for an appeal as an internal remedy, and the applicant did not seek exemption under section 7(2)(c). The compliance...

Citation
[2005] ZALC 40
Parties
Applicant: Enforce Guarding (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Minister of Labour - RSA; Respondent: Director-General of Department of Labour; Respondent: National Security and Unqualified Workers Union; Respondent: SA Transport and Allied Workers Union; Respondent: Security & Allied Trade Union of South Africa; Respondent: National Security Workers Union; Respondent: Employees who are not members of any of the aforesaid
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 January 2005
Case Number
D236/04 , D292/04
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Condonation and Review; Point in Limine Raised and Decided
Outcome
Both the application for condonation and the application for review are dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Ngcamu
Legal Topics
Basic Conditions of Employment Act, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Condonation, Internal Remedies Exhaustion, Sectoral Determination, Overtime Payment
Labour Law Administrative Law Basic Conditions of Employment Act Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Condonation Internal Remedies Exhaustion Sectoral Determination Overtime Payment

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Enforce Guarding (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Minister of Labour - RSA

Respondent

Director-General of Department of Labour

Respondent

National Security and Unqualified Workers Union

Respondent

SA Transport and Allied Workers Union

Respondent

Security & Allied Trade Union of South Africa

Respondent

National Security Workers Union

Respondent

Employees who are not members of any of the aforesaid

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Application for Condonation and Review; Point in Limine Raised and Decided

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant provided a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the late filing of the appeal against the compliance order.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's review application was premature due to failure to exhaust internal remedies as required by section 7(2)(a) of PAJA.
  3. 3 Whether the compliance order issued under the Basic Conditions of Employment Act was valid and enforceable.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the late filing of its appeal against the compliance order. The human resources manager was aware of the refusal of the variation application prior to service of the compliance order and neglected his duty by not reading the document. The explanation offered was not credible and did not satisfy the requirements for condonation. Furthermore, the review application was brought prematurely, as the applicant had not exhausted internal remedies as required by section 7(2)(a) of PAJA. The statute provided for an appeal as an internal remedy, and the applicant did not seek exemption under section 7(2)(c). The compliance...

Court Disposition

Both the application for condonation and the application for review are dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is dismissed.
  • The application for review is dismissed.