South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg Support SAFLII

You are here:  SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg >> 2009 >> [2009] ZALCJHB 67

| Noteup | LawCite

Erasmus v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR36/04) [2009] ZALCJHB 67 (15 September 2009)

Download original files

PDF format

RTF format

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

HELD IN JOHANNESBURG

NOT REPORTABLE

                                                                                       CASE NO: JR36/04

In the matter between:      

COLIN CLINTON ERASMUS                                                                                  APPLICANT

and

COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,

MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION                                                               1ST RESPONDENT

TERRY MOODLEY N.O.                                                                             2ND RESPONDENT

TELKOM SA LIMITED                                                                                3RD RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

Molahlehi J

Introduction

[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against my judgment handed down on 19th February 2009, in which I dismissed the review application of the applicant.

[2] The applicant in this application for leave to appeal has raised several points which he calls grounds for leave to appeal. I do not deem it necessary to repeat those points in this judgment.

[3] In terms of section 166(1) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, a party whishing to appeal to the Labour Appeal Court against a judgment of the Labour Court has to obtain leave to do so from the Labour Court. The test to apply when considering whether or not to grant leave to appeal is whether there is a reasonable prospect that another Court may come to a different conclusion to that of the Labour Court.

[4] I have carefully considered the points raised by the applicant in his application for leave to appeal to the Labour Appeal Court. I have also considered my judgment including the submissions made by both parties. Having regard to conspectus of the evidence which was presented before me and the legal principles applied, I am not persuaded that there are reasonable prospects that another Court could come to a different conclusion to the one reached by me in my judgment.

[5] In the circumstances the application for leave to appeal to the Labour Appeal Court is dismissed with no order as to costs.

_______________

Molahlehi J



Date of Judgment   :         15th September 2009

(Application decided on papers)