Quenting Marais and Gerhardus Johannes Piennar v Quarrying Enterprises (Private) Limited and A. Rehaman

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE JUDGMENT
NO LC/H/363/2013
19TH MARCH 2013 &02 AUGUST 2013 CASE NO
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	    JUDGMENT NO LC/H/363/2013

19TH MARCH 2013 &02 AUGUST 2013 	CASE NO LC/ORD/H/203/2012

In the matter between:-

QUENTING MARAIS						1st Applicant

GERHARDUS JOHANNES PIENNAR				2nd Applicant

And

QUARRYING ENTERPRISES (PVT) LIMITED			1st Respondent

A. REHAMAN							2nd Respondent

Before The Honourable L Matanda – Moyo, President

For Applicants		In person

For Respondent		M. Chitewe Gula - Ndebele (Legal Practitioner)

MATANDA – MOYO, L:

On 24 April 2013 I dismissed Applicants’ application.  Applicants requests  reasons for such dismissal.  These are they;

Applicants made an application to this court in terms of section 89(2) (b),(c) (d) of the Labour Act as read with Rule 14(1) (b)  this court’s rules.  Applicants alleged that a Labour Officer failed for some reason to issue a Certificate of No Settlement, in relation to the dispute in terms of Section 93(3) of the Act after the expiry of 30 days.  The initial day of conciliation was 21 November 2012.  30 days there from was 9 January 2013.  On 14 December 2012, Applicants brought this application before this court.  The Labour Officer had 30 days from the date of filing to either conciliate the matter or issue a

JUDGMENT NO LC/H/363/2013

Certificate of No Settlement.  The Applicants acted in haste in bringing this application.  It is my finding therefore that this Application was filed prematurely.

The Applicants have also failed to make use of domestic remedies available to them in terms of the law.  No attempt was made to follow the internal dispute resolution procedures.  It is trite that an aggrieved employee should first exhaust domestic remedies before approaching this Court.  The Applicants have not even proffered any reasons why it became necessary not to follow such proceedings.  Without such justification it is my finding that the Applicants pursue such domestic issues before approaching this court.  See Chubb Union of Zimbabwe (Pvt) Limited vs Chubb Union Workers Committee SC 01/2001, Rushwaya vs Enbee Stores SC 79/2000.

During the conciliation proceedings Applicants were represented by a Labour Consultant in violation of Section 4 of the Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Regulations, SI 217/03 which provides;

“A party to a matter before a Labour Officer may be represented by a fellow employee, an official of a registered trade union, employers’ organisation or a legal practitioner.”

Such representation was incompetent and any submissions by such representative were incompetent.  Anything that flew from such proceedings became a nullity.

As a result I ordered as did I  on 29 April 2013.

Gula Ndebele and Partners- Respondent’s Legal Practitioners