Maja v North West MEC for Health and Another (J 534/2020) [2022] ZALCJHB 317 (17 November 2022)
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Case number
J 534/2020
Judge
Van Niekerk
The Labour Court dismissed a review of the MEC’s refusal to reinstate an employee deemed dismissed under section 17 of the Public Service Act, finding the decision rational and adequately reasoned.
Majola v MEC for Roads and Transport: Gauteng Provincial Department (J2797/17) [2019] ZALCJHB 207 (30 April 2019)
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Case number
J2797/17
Judge
Prinsloo
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding his dismissal. The respondent's power to dismiss under the Public Service Act is lawful when exercised in accordance with the Labour Relations Act, and the applicant's remedy lies within the LRA. The grounds for leave to appeal were found to be without merit and did not raise any novel issues deserving the attention of the Labour Appeal Court. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.
Gangaram v MEC for the Department of Health, Kwazulu-Natal and Another (DA9/16) [2017] ZALAC 38; (2017) 38 ILJ 2261 (LAC); [2017] 11 BLLR 1082 (LAC) (13 June 2017)
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Case number
DA9/16
Judges
Tlaletsi, Landman, Phatshoane
The Labour Appeal Court held that the employee was not lawfully deemed dismissed under the Public Service Act because her sick leave forms and medical certificates justified her absence.
MEC For The Deapartment Of Health, Western Cape v Weder, In Re: MEC For The Department Of Health, Western Cape v Democratic Nursing Organization Of South Africa obo Mangena (CA4/2013, CA5/2013) [2014] ZALAC 13; [2014] 7 BLLR 687 (LAC); (2014) 35 ILJ 2131 (LAC) (13 May 2014)
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Case number
CA4/2013, CA5/2013
Judges
Davis JA, Tlaletsi DJP, Coppin AJA
The Labour Appeal Court held that the appellant failed to provide adequate reasons for refusing to reinstate the respondents, both in the initial decision and in subsequent affidavits. The respondents' absences were due to medical conditions and were not willful or deliberate. The appellant did not demonstrate that the employment relationship had been rendered intolerable, nor did it provide a rational basis for its decisions. The principle of legality requires that public functionaries act rationally and provide reasons for their decisions. The delays in bringing review proceedings were reas…
MEC FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WC V WEDER MANGENA (CA 4/2013, CA 5/2013) [2014] ZALAC 98 (13 May 2014)
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Case number
CA 4/2013, CA 5/2013
Judges
Davis JA, Tlaletsi DJP, Coppin AJA
The Labour Appeal Court held that the appellant failed to provide adequate reasons for refusing to reinstate the respondents after their deemed dismissal under s 17(3)(a)(i) of the Public Service Act. Both respondents were absent due to serious medical conditions, and their absences were not willful or deliberate. The appellant did not demonstrate that the employment relationship had been rendered intolerable, nor did it provide a rational basis for its decisions. The principle of legality requires that public functionaries act rationally and provide reasons for their decisions. The delay in…
PSA obo Smit v Mphaphuli NO and Others (C742/11) [2014] ZALCCT 19; (2014) 35 ILJ 2254 (LC) (16 April 2014)
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Case number
C742/11
Judge
Steenkamp
The court found that the arbitrator's award was reasonable and not reviewable, as the evidence showed the applicant was absent without permission for more than a calendar month, satisfying the jurisdictional prerequisites for termination by operation of law under section 17 of the Public Service Act. The arbitrator properly considered the evidence and followed the required process. However, the MEC's refusal to reinstate the applicant was set aside because no reasons were provided for the decision, rendering it irrational and unreasonable under principles of administrative justice. The matter…
Choane v MEC for Health North West Province and Another (1739/2012) [2013] ZANWHC 59 (20 June 2013)
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Case number
1739/2012
Judge
M M Leeuw
The court found that the applicant failed to establish that the MEC received his written request for reconsideration of his dismissal, as there was no evidence the registered letter was received or signed for. Without proof of receipt, the applicant could not claim a right to a decision or reasons under PAJA. Furthermore, the applicant did not make further enquiries to determine whether the MEC had received the letter, nor did he exhaust internal remedies as required by Section 7(1) of PAJA. The application was brought more than 180 days after the request, outside the prescribed time limits.…
Grootboom v National Prosecuting Authority and Another (CA 7/11) [2012] ZALAC 28; (2013) 34 ILJ 282 (LAC); [2013] 5 BLLR 452 (LAC) (21 September 2012)
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Case number
CA 7/11
Judges
Tlaletsi JA, Davis JA, Hlophe AJA
The Labour Appeal Court held that the appellant's discharge from public service was effected by operation of law under section 17(5)(a)(i) of the Public Service Act, as he was absent from duty for over a calendar month without permission. The evidence showed that the appellant did not have authorisation for paid study leave and attempted to change the conditions of the provisional permission granted. His absence met the jurisdictional requirements for the deeming provision to apply. The court found that no administrative decision was taken by the employer; the discharge was automatic and not…
