{"issue_text":"Whether section 18 of the Labour Amendment Act No 5 of 2015 violates sections 56(1) and 3(2)(k) of the Constitution through retrospective application","issue_type":"constitutional","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Termination of contracts on 31 October 2015; amendment act applied retrospectively from 17 July 2015"}
{"issue_text":"Whether section 93(5) of the Labour Act violates sections 68(1), 69(2) and 169(1) of the Constitution by removing right of appeal and compromising judicial independence","issue_type":"constitutional","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Labour officer acts as conciliator, adjudicator and litigant; no clear appeal procedure"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the request for constitutional referral is frivolous or vexatious","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Constitutional issues raised are serious and not groundless"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The respondent company terminated employment contracts of 12 employees on three months' notice. The employees claimed minimum retrenchment packages under section 12C(2) of the Labour Act. The applicant ruled they were entitled to such packages. The respondent opposed confirmation of this ruling and filed a counter application seeking constitutional referral of two issues: the retrospectivity of section 18 of the Labour Amendment Act No 5 of 2015, and the constitutionality of the procedure under section 93(5) of the Act.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases