South Africa: Port Elizabeth Labour Court, Port Elizabeth

You are here:
SAFLII >>
Databases >>
South Africa: Port Elizabeth Labour Court, Port Elizabeth >>
2024 >>
[2024] ZALCPE 48
| Noteup
| LawCite
South African Police Service v Gongota and Another (PR221/20) [2024] ZALCPE 48 (25 November 2024)
Download original files |
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, GQEBERHA
Not Reportable
Case No: PR221/20
SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICE |
Applicant
|
and |
|
VUYANI S. GONGOTA |
First Respondent
|
SAFETY AND SECURITY SECTORAL BARGAINING COUNCIL |
Second Respondent
|
RANDELL, C N.O. |
Third Respondent |
Heard: In Chambers
Delivered: 25 November 2024
JUDGMENT
MAKHURA, J
[1] This is an application brought by the first respondent (employee) for leave to appeal the whole judgment and order of this court handed down on 14 October 2024, in terms of which this Court reviewed and set aside the award and referred the matter to the second respondent for arbitration on the unfair dismissal dispute. The primary reason for the decision was that the commissioner determined the dismissal dispute without affording the applicant (SAPS), and as a matter of fact both parties, an opportunity to present the case on the fairness or otherwise of the employee’s dismissal.
[2] The employee had, simultaneously with his application for leave to appeal on 4 November 2024, filed his submissions in terms of rule 67(5) of the Rules of this Court. The SAPS’ submissions were due 5 days after receipt of the employee’s submissions. That period expired on 11 November 2024 and the SAPS had not filed its submissions. This application is therefore determined unopposed.
[3] I have considered the employee’s grounds upon which leave to appeal is sought and his written submissions. It is not necessary to regurgitate them in this judgement. The grounds advanced are in my view based on either a fundamental misapprehension of the main judgment or simply a lack of appreciation of the legal basis upon which the award was reviewed and set aside. For that reason, the application for leave to appeal would have no reasonable prospects of success and is not deserving of the higher court’s attention. It does not raise any arguable point and there are no compelling reasons to send it to the Labour Appeal Court.
[4] In the premises, the following order is made:
Order
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
M. Makhura
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa