Techniflex CC and Another v Maanaso and Another

The first and second respondents were dismissed by Techniflex CC on 12 February 2015 and referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the CCMA. An arbitration award issued on 7 September 2015 found the dismissals substantively and procedurally unfair and ordered retrospective reinstatement, payment of arrear salaries, and that the respondents report for duty on 25 September 2015. The appellants did not reinstate the respondents. The respondents alleged they reported for duty and were turned away, and brought contempt proceedings in the Labour Court. The Labour Court found the appellants in contempt, ordered reinstatement, and imposed fines payable to the respondents. The appellants appealed to the Labour Appeal Court.

The appeal was upheld. The Labour Court’s contempt order and fines were set aside. The contempt application was dismissed. The appellants were ordered to reinstate the respondents with immediate effect and to pay back-pay from the date of service of the contempt application. No order as to costs was made.

The case clarifies the stringent evidentiary standard required to prove contempt of court in labour matters and confirms that inconsistencies in evidence may be fatal to a contempt finding. It also affirms that fines for contempt are punitive measures payable to the state, not to litigants, while underscoring that arbitration awards remain enforceable even where contempt is not established.