Chevron Engineering (Pty) Ltd v Nkambule and Others

Chevron Engineering dismissed almost its entire production workforce on 23 March 1995 for participating in an illegal strike arising from a dispute about religious and cultural practices at the workplace. After the dismissal, the employer selectively re‑employed 100 of the 124 dismissed employees without consultation, leaving 24 employees, including the respondents, unemployed. The respondents challenged both their dismissal and the selective re‑employment as unfair labour practices under s 46(9) of the Labour Relations Act 28 of 1956. The Industrial Court found the dismissal and selective re‑employment unfair and ordered reinstatement retrospective to the date of dismissal, amounting to 4 years and 7 months. This order was upheld by the Labour Appeal Court. Chevron appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal, challenging only the lawfulness of reinstatement with retrospectivity beyond six months.

The appeal succeeded. The retrospective reinstatement order exceeding six months was set aside. The Supreme Court of Appeal held that reinstatement could not lawfully be ordered with retrospectivity beyond six months, and no additional compensation was awarded.

The case authoritatively clarifies the limits of remedial powers under the repealed Labour Relations Act 28 of 1956, confirming that reinstatement orders made under s 46(9) were subject to the six‑month retrospective cap in s 49(3)(b). It reinforces the distinction between reinstatement and compensation, and affirms that statutory limits on retrospectivity are peremptory. The judgment is an important precedent on statutory interpretation, the meaning of mutatis mutandis, and fairness in labour remedies.