Petro Chem Technical Service (Pty) Ltd v Motor Industry Bargaining Council Dispute Resolution Centre and Others

The third and fourth respondents were employees of Petro Chem Technical Service (Pty) Ltd and were dismissed in April 2013 for alleged gross dishonesty and gross negligence arising from the completion and submission of a trade union membership form. An arbitration conducted under the auspices of the Motor Industry Bargaining Council resulted in an award finding both dismissals substantively unfair. The applicant launched a review application in terms of section 145 of the Labour Relations Act but failed to prosecute it within the time periods prescribed by the Labour Court Practice Manual. Over several years, the matter was marked by excessive delays, multiple section 158(1)(c) applications to make the award an order of court, rescission applications, and an urgent stay of enforcement. By the time the review was eventually argued, the review application had not been properly progressed within 12 months and no formal application for reinstatement or condonation for the delay had been brought.

The Labour Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the review application because it had lapsed and no proper application for reinstatement was before the court. Consequently, the review application could not be entertained.

The judgment reinforces the binding nature of the Labour Court Practice Manual and confirms that non-compliance with clause 11.2.7 results in a review application lapsing and being archived. It underscores that the Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to hear a lapsed review unless a proper application for reinstatement and condonation is brought, thereby promoting expedition and finality in labour disputes.