1

IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF ESWATINI

CASE NO. 184/2016

In the matter between:-

SIYABONGA MAGUDVULELA DLAMINI Applicant

AND

SWAZILAND ELECTRICITY COMPANY Respondent

Neutral citation: Siyabonga Magudvulela Dlamini vs Swaziland

Electricity Company 184/2016 [2018] SZIC 99 (24

September, 2018)

Coram: N.NKONYANE, J

(Sitting with G. Ndzinisa and S. Mvubu Nominated

Members of the Court)

Heard submissions: 10/08/18

Judgement delivered: 24/09/18

2

SUMMARY---Labour Law---Applicant who was an employee of the

Respondent appointed to be a Member of Parliament by His Majesty

the King---Respondent putting the Applicant on unpaid leave of

absence and stopping the Applicant’s salary without prior

consultation with the Applicant---Applicant filing an application

before the Court for an order declaring the unilateral decision of the

Respondent as constituting an unfair labour practice.

Held---The conduct of the Respondent of subjecting the Applicant to

unpaid leave of absence and stopping his salary without prior

consultation amounted to an unfair labour practice.

JUDGEMENT

1. This is an application that was instituted by the Applicant against the

Respondent on Notice of Motion on 19th July 2016.

2. The Applicant is seeking an order in the following terms;

3

“1. Declaring the unpaid leave imposed by the Respondent to the

Applicant in October 2008 as unlawful and constituting an unfair

labour practice and thus null and void.

2. That the Respondent be ordered and directed to forthwith pay the

Applicant’s arrear salaries for the period January 2009 up to

and inclusive of March 2010 calculated at the monthly rate of

E17 778.00 in the total sum of E266 670.00.

3. Cost of this application.

4. Further and/or alternative relief.”

3. The Applicant is a former employee of the Respondent. He was

employed by the Respondent on 01 February 1984 and remained in

continuous employment until 31 March 2010 when he entered into a

voluntary early retirement agreement. The agreement is attached to the

Applicant’s application and is marked Annexure “SMD15”. At the time

of his retirement the Applicant was holding the position of Training

Officer.

4

4. Prior to the termination of the employment relationship on 31st March

2010, the Applicant was, during October 2008, appointed by His Majesty

the King of the Kingdom of ESwatini to serve in the 9th Parliament of the

Kingdom of ESwatini as a Senator.

5. After the Applicant’s appointment, the Respondent placed him on unpaid

leave of absence for the duration of his term in Parliament with effect

from 01 January 2009. The correspondence containing that directive is

attached to the Applicant’s founding affidavit and is marked Annexure

“SMD2”. Accordingly, the Respondent stopped payment of the

Applicant’s salary as from January 2009.

6. The Applicant was aggrieved by the Respondent’s conduct of stopping

his salary without any prior consultation. He reported the matter to the

Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration Commission (CMAC) as an

unfair labour practice. At CMAC the parties signed a memorandum of

agreement and they agreed to have the dispute referred back for further

negotiations. The negotiations did not yield any positive results. The

Applicant eventually retired in March 2010.

7. The Applicant in his founding affidavit averred that he continued to

report for duty from January 2009 until March 2010 when he took the

voluntary early retirement package. He therefore demanded to be paid

5

his salary for the period from January 2009 up to March 2010. The

Respondent refused to yield to the Applicant’s demand. The Applicant

thereafter reported the dispute to CMAC. The dispute could not be

resolved by conciliation and the Commission issued a certificate of

unresolved dispute.

8. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The issues for determination are fairly simple ones and they are;

8.1 Was there any unpaid leave of absence policy in place at the

Respondent’s workplace in 2008 when the Applicant was

appointed.

8.2 Was the Applicant consulted prior to the unpaid leave policy

being effected in January 2009.

9. Unpaid Leave of Absence Policy:-

The evidence before the Court revealed that the Applicant is a member of

the union that is recognized by the Respondent by the name of

SESMAWU. There is therefore a Collective Agreement between the

6

parties. The Applicant told the Court that there is no provision for

unpaid leave of absence in the Collective Agreement.

10. The Respondent in its answering affidavit stated that there was such a

policy in place. In paragraph 13 of the answering affidavit the

Respondent stated that it was “merely implementing a standing policy

that employees appointed to parliament will be placed on unpaid leave

for the duration of their appointment”. Again, in paragraph16 the

Respondent stated that “this was in accordance with the Respondent’s

internal policies in particular Policy No. 662 of the policy relating to

guidelines for handling external appointments’’.

11. In support of its position the Respondent relied on Annexure “AM1” of

the answering affidavit. That document is titled “Swaziland Electricity

Company Guidelines for Handling External Appointment.”

The word “External” is not typed but is written in long hand. There is no

signature of the person who made the correction. As already pointed out,

the Respondent’s establishment has a unionized environment. There is

no evidence on this document as to when did it come into operation. The

document is not signed by management and the Union representatives.

7

12. During the oral evidence, the Applicant denied knowledge of this document.

He told the Court that there was no way that this document could have

come into operation without his knowledge as the Training Officer. He

told the Court that as part of his duties, he is responsible for the induction

of new employees and that as part of that process, he teaches the new

employees the company policies. He said he did not recall this document

being given to him to teach the new employees of the company.

13. The Respondent led two witnesses, Sikelela Patrick Qwabe and Sifiso Patrick

Dlamini. Sikelela Patrick Qwabe, (RW1), only testified about the issue

surrounding the locking of the Applicant’s office. He denied that the

Applicant was locked out of his office.

14. Sifiso Patrick Dlamini, (RW2), told the Court in his evidence in chief that

there was a policy in place regulating the external appointments at the

workplace. He told the Court that the policy was put in place before the

appointment of the Applicant. He admitted that there was another

employee of the Respondent who was appointed to the Swazi National

Council Standing Committee (SNC) and later to the House of Senate, who

was paid his full salary during the terms of his appointment. He said the

name of this employee was Chief Ndzameya Nhlabatsi. He said with

Chief Ndzameya Nhlabatsi there was some kind of arrangement between

8

the parties but did not disclose what the arrangement was. RW2 said the

extract of the policy was the one attached to the papers before Court and

marked Annexure “AM1”. RW2 also referred to the Collective

Agreement signed by the parties on 10 July 2007.

15. During cross examination, RW2 told the Court that he was not part of the

Managers that formulated the document titled “Guidelines for Handling

External Appointments”. (See: pages 59 – 61 of the Book of Pleadings).

He told the Court that the document would have had to go through him

before adoption. RW2 failed to tell the Court the date on which this

document was adopted and put into operation by the Respondent. When

asked if the document did have dates when it was supposedly brought to

his office, RW2 said it should have had but he did not recall.

16. RW2 was asked as to why he did not simply tell the Applicant that he

was being put on unpaid leave of absence in terms of the company

policies in the letter that he wrote to the Applicant on 28 October 2008.

In response RW2 said there was no specific reason why he did not do

that. When it was put to him that he did not refer to any policy in that

letter because there was no such policy in existence at the time, RW2

replied and said “that’s your view”.

9

17. RW2 agreed that there was nowhere in the correspondence that he

directed to the Applicant where he mentioned the policy that he was

talking about in Court.

18. It is important that the letter that RW2 wrote to the Applicant after his

appointment be reproduced in full in this judgement. It appears as

follows:

“APPOINTMENT AS A SENATOR IN THE 9TH PARLIAMENT.

The Management of SEC is pleased to know of your recent

appointment as a Senator in the 9th Parliament of Swaziland.

In keeping with business norm and practice we shall release you on

unpaid leave of absence for the duration of your appointment with

effect from the 1st of January 2009.

Kindly liaise with the undersigned and your supervisor for purposes of

handing over the functions of your office.

We once again congratulate and wish you a very successful and

productive period as a legislator of the Kingdom of Swaziland.

10

Yours faithfully

SP Dlamini

GM – Corporate Services

cc. Executive Management

Manager- Training & Development

Manager – HR Services

19. The importance of this letter is that there is nowhere where the author,

RW2, refers to the Collective Agreement that was signed by the parties

on 10 July 2007 or to any policy regulating external appointments. RW2

only stated in paragraph two of this letter that what the company was

doing was “…In keeping with business norm and practice”.

20. The Court granted the Respondent’s attorney a long adjournment to give

him the opportunity to look for the complete document from which

Annexure “AM1” was extracted. The Respondent’s attorney failed to

bring the document to Court. The Respondent’s attorney, being a Senior

Attorney of the Courts of this country, was candid enough to inform the

Court that he was unable to locate a hard copy of the document.

11

21. During cross examination, the Applicant was referred to Article 46.0 of

the Collective Agreement that was signed by the parties on 10 July 2007.

That Article provides for “Policies and Memorandum of

Understanding”. The policies are listed under 46.1 paragraphs (a) – (x).

In this Article there is only mentioned policy on leave under paragraph

(n). There is no policy on unpaid leave of absence. In any event, in the

letter that RW2 wrote to the Applicant on 28 October 2008, he did not

refer to any policy document of the Respondent.

22. That there was no such policy in place was also clear from the

Respondent’s own conduct of referring the issue to the King’s Office for

its guidance. If there was any company policy in place at that time, the

Respondent would have simply referred to the policy and not sought the

guidance of The King’s Office on the matter. The King’s Office

responded by letter dated 27 August 2009. Annexure “SMD 13”. (Pages

39-40 of the Book of Pleadings).

23. The King’s Office responded and pointed out that the decision as to what

to do about the matter could be taken by the employer and not by any

other office. In paragraph 3 the Kings’ Office stated that;

12

“3. The King’s Office also notes that there is precedence in this

matter as another former employee of the SEC Chief Ndzameya

Nhlabatsi, MP, served in the Standing Committee of the Swazi

National Council (Liqoqo) for two (2) terms and in Parliament,

and was not placed on Leave of Absence by SEC during his term

in Parliament. Prince Magudvulela is in a similar position.”

When the issue of Chief Ndzameya Nhlabatsi was put to RW2 during cross

examination, RW2 stated that Chief Ndzameya Nhlabatsi was an old man,

honest and was able to juggle between the positions. There was no evidence

that the Applicant could not do the same as Chief Ndzameya Nhlabatsi did.

There is no doubt to the Court that the conduct of the Respondent of giving

different treatment to similarly circumstanced employees amounted to unfair

discrimination.

24. In his evidence in chief, RW2 told the Court that with Chief Ndzameya

Nhlabatsi, there was an arrangement that the parties agreed to. RW2 failed to

tell the Court why a similar arrangement was not made with the Applicant.

25. From the evidence before the Court, we have no hesitation in reaching the

conclusion that there was no company policy of unpaid leave of absence in

13

place in October 2008 when the Applicant was appointed to be a Member of

Parliament because of the following reasons;

25.1 RW2 failed to tell the Court the date on which such policy came into

operation at the Respondent’s establishment.

25.2 The Respondent in its letter that was written to the Applicant by RW2

on 28 October 2008 telling him that he was being released on unpaid

leave of absence, did not refer to any company policy.

25.3 The conduct of the Respondent of seeking advice from the King’s Office

on the matter was proof that there was no such policy in place within its

establishment.

25.4 The evidence that another employee of the Respondent, Chief

Ndzameya Nhlabatsi, was not subjected to the provisions of this policy

showed that there was no such policy in place.

25.5 After a long postponement to allow the Respondent’s attorney to find

the document, he failed to do so and informed the Court that he was

unable to find a hard copy of the document. There was no evidence that

14

the document filed in Court, ANNEXURE “AM1” was agreed to,

adopted and signed by the parties.

WAS THERE CONSULTATION BEFORE THE APPLICANT WAS

PLACED ON UNPAID LEAVE OF ABSENCE:-

26. There was no evidence before the Court that the Applicant was called by the

Respondent for consultation on the way forward, following his appointment to

the House of Senate. There was no evidence of any consultation between the

Applicant and his Supervisor, RW1, Mr. Sikelela Patrick Qwabe or the

Human Resources Manager. Instead, the Respondent caused the letter dated

28 October 2008 to be written to the Applicant telling him that he would be

released on unpaid leave of absence.

27. This letter by the Respondent caused the Applicant to write to RW2

requesting that a meeting be held by the parties to discuss the issue of his

appointment as it had become clear that the Respondent had taken a unilateral

decision on the matter. The Applicant’s letter is marked ANNEXURE “SMD

3” of the founding affidavit. (Page twenty-three of the Book of Pleadings).

28. The Respondent did not respond to the Applicant’s letter dated 04th December

2008. That conduct by the Respondent caused the Applicant to write another

15

letter dated 30 January 2009. There was again no response by the Respondent

and the Applicant decided to seek the intervention of the union by letter dated

13 February 2009, ANNEXURE SMD 5 of the founding affidavit. (Page 26

of the Book of Pleadings). It was only after the union’s involvement that the

parties met in RW2’s office on 17 February 2009.

29. When the parties met on 17 February 2009, the Respondent’s letter dated 28

October 2008 had not been withdrawn by the Respondent. The consultation

was therefore not in good faith as the Respondent had already taken a position

on the matter that it would release the Applicant on unpaid leave of absence.

Further, at that point, the salary of the Applicant had been stopped. The salary

of the Applicant was also stopped without any prior consultation. It was

clearly unfair on the part of the Applicant to have his salary stopped without

any prior consultation. It is an unfair labour practice for an employer to make

a unilateral decision that adversely affects the interests of an employee.

30. The Industrial Court has an equitable jurisdiction which requires it to promote

fairness and equity in labour relations. (See: Section 4 (1) of the Industrial

Relations Act N0.1 of 2000 as amended).

16

31. When RW2 was asked if he did consult the Applicant, he gave a crafty answer

and said, “It depends on how one defines consultations.” RW2 told the Court

that;

“……whilst in my view it was not necessary to do so, I personally spoke to the

Applicant at the Royal Villas……”

The evidence revealed that RW2 and the Applicant met briefly at the Royal

Villas and RW2 congratulated the Applicant for his appointment. It was not a

meeting scheduled by the Respondent for consultation purposes.

32. During cross examination, RW2 told the Court that the decision to put the

Applicant on unpaid leave of absence was taken at management level. There

was no evidence that the Applicant or the Union was consulted prior to the

decision being taken and implemented.

ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE LAW APPLICABLE:-

33. The Applicant’s case before the Court was simply that the Respondent

adopted and subjected him to unfair labour practice by placing him on unpaid

leave of absence without prior consultation and also stopped his salary

without prior consultation. Indeed, there was no evidence that the Applicant

17

was consulted before the Respondent told him of its decision to release him on

unpaid leave of absence through its letter dated 28 October 2008.

34. The Respondent’s case was that it merely implemented a standing policy that

employees appointed to Parliament would be placed on unpaid leave for the

duration of their appointments. (See: Paragraph 13 of the Respondent’s

answering affidavit.) The Respondent was specific as to which policy it was

relying upon. It stated in paragraph 16 of the answering affidavit that it was

acting in terms of its internal policies, in particular Policy number 662 of the

policy relating to guidelines for handling external appointments.

(See:ANNEXURE AM1). ANNEXURE AM1 is an extract. The Respondent

failed to produce the complete document. The Respondent also failed to tell

the Court as to when was the document approved and adopted at the

Respondent’s place.

35. The Applicant having denied the existence of the policy at the workplace, the

evidentiary burden shifted to the Respondent to prove that the policy existed

at the time of the Applicant’s appointment. The Learned Author, John

Grogan: Workplace Law, 8th edition at page 158 stated the following when

dealing with the issue of rules at the workplace;

18

“When employees deny the existence of the rule upon which the employer

relies, the employer is required to satisfy the Court or arbitrator that the rule

exists, and that the employee was or should have been aware of it.”

In casu, RW2 failed to tell the Court when did the policy come into operation

at the Respondent’s place.

36. In its written submissions and in his oral submissions, the Respondent’s

attorney argued that there was no obligation on the part of the Respondent to

pay any salary to the Applicant as the Applicant had already breached his

terms and conditions of employment. It was argued further that the Applicant

cannot on the one hand breach his contract of employment and then sue the

employer to pay him in terms of the contract notwithstanding the breach. In

support of his submissions, the Respondent’s attorney relied on R.H. Christie,

The Law of Contract, in South Africa, 1983 at page 482 where the Learned

Author stated that;

“…….Conversely, the party who has caused the other’s breach by making it

impossible or nugatory to perform or by failing to carry out the necessary

preliminaries which rest upon him cannot found any claim on the breach he

has thus precipitated.”

19

It was further argued on behalf of the Respondent that the Applicant was

heavily engaged in parliamentary work such that it would have been

physically impossible for him to actually be at work at the same time.

37. On behalf of the Applicant it was argued that it was not in dispute that the

Applicant remained an employee of the Respondent up to 22 March 2010

when he took early retirement and the employment relationship was

terminated by mutual agreement.

38. The argument by the Respondent is not supported by the evidence before the

Court. The evidence before the Court revealed that on 28 October 2008 after

the Respondent learnt of the Applicant’s appointment, it wrote a letter to him

telling him that he would be released on unpaid leave of absence for the

duration of his appointment to Parliament with effect from 01st January 2009.

It was therefore, the Respondent that first committed a breach of the terms of

the employment relationship between the parties by stopping the salary of the

Applicant unilaterally, without any prior consultation.

39. By stopping the Applicant’s salary without prior consultation, the Respondent

created an environment in which it would be impossible for the Applicant to

fulfill his contractual duties to the employer. The employer cannot be allowed

now to benefit from its own unlawful conduct. Dealing with a similar

20

question, the Court in the case of Raymond Mhlanga V Swaziland

Government & Another, case number 161/09 (IC) stated as follows in

paragraph 15 that;

“When the Applicant was not at work he did not render any services to the

Respondent. It would therefore be unfair to order the 1st Respondent to pay

the Applicant any money for the period that he did not render any services.

However, if the Applicant was unable to render his service because of the

conduct of the 1st Respondent (employer), it would also be unfair that he is not

paid his arrear salary for the period that he was not at work because of the

conduct of the 1st Respondent.”

Similarly, in casu, the Respondent cannot successfully argue that it is not

obliged to pay the Applicant his arrear salary because he was not reporting for

duty. The Applicant did not report for duty because of the Respondent’s

unlawful conduct of unilaterally stopping his salary.

40. John Grogan (supra) at page 54 stated that;

“The employee’s duty to render service is the corollary of the employer’s duty

to remunerate, the maxim being ‘no work no pay’. The reverse also applies:

21

‘no pay, no work; ie employees who have not been paid may legitimately

refuse to work without breaching their contracts.”

41. The Respondent’s attorney put emphasis on the fact that the Applicant

contradicted himself on the issue of when did the Applicant stop coming to

work. In his founding affidavit the Applicant averred that he was reporting

for duty on a daily basis until the retirement date in March 2010. Oral

evidence however revealed that the Applicant attended Parliament twice a

week from 2:30 P.M.

42. The Applicant also told the Court in his oral evidence that he stopped going to

work in March 2009 because he found his office locked. He also said that his

computer was taken away by the Respondent. RW1, Sikelela Patrick Qwabe

denied that the Applicant’s office was locked by the Respondent. He told the

Court that there were two doors leading to the Applicant’s office and that

locking the Applicants office could have meant locking the secretary out also.

RW1 agreed during cross examination that at the time relevant to the issue

before the Court, he was no longer stationed at Matsapha but was based at the

Head Office in Mbabane. RW1’ evidence on this issue was therefore not

reliable.

22

43. The Respondent’s attorney argued before the Court that since the Applicant

gave oral evidence that was contradictory to his founding affidavit, the Court

should dismiss the Applicant’s application as a whole especially because there

was no application to amend the prayers to reflect that the Applicant was

seeking payment only for the days on which he reported for duty, and not for

the whole period of January 2009 to March 2010.

44. The Applicant however did not contradict himself on the issue of unpaid leave

of absence and unfair labour practice, which is the main prayer in his

application. Once the Applicant succeeds on the main prayer, the Court may

issue any further and/or alternative relief.

45. From the evidence before the Court, it was clear that the Applicant did not

render his services to the Respondent because of the unlawful conduct by the

Respondent. The Respondent stopped the Applicant’s salary unilaterally

without any prior consultation. It was the Respondent that breached the terms

and conditions of employment. From 04 December 2008 the Applicant

requested to have consultation with the Respondent but the Respondent did

not oblige. It was only after the Applicant had roped in the Union that a

meeting was finally held at RW2’s office on 17 February 2009.

23

46. Once the Court finds that there was no legal basis for stopping the Applicant’s

salary, the Court must order that the arrear salary is due and must be paid by

the Respondent. That the Applicant contradicted himself on the issue whether

he was reporting for duty daily or on some days in a week does not make the

illegality of the Respondent’s conduct any less. The Respondent placed the

Applicant on unpaid leave of absence for the duration of his Parliamentary

term. Fortunately for the Applicant there was a voluntary early retirement

opportunity that opened in January 2010. The Applicant took up this

opportunity and his application was approved by the Executive Management

Committee of the Respondent on 16 March 2010. The Applicant is not

claiming payment for the duration of term in Parliament, but only up to March

2010 when he retired from the Respondent’s employment.

47. The Respondent’s defence that Chief Ndzameya Nhlabatsi was paid whilst he

was both its employee and Member of Parliament because there was a special

arrangement does not take its case any further. It only makes things worse

because it proves that the Applicant was discriminated against by the

Respondent. To give different treatment to employees in similar

circumstances is discrimination and it amounts to unfair labour practice.

48. There is no doubt to the Court that there was unfair labour practice in the

manner that the Applicant was treated by the Respondent because;

24

48.1 The Applicant was not consulted by the Respondent prior to his salary

being stopped.

48.2 The Respondent relied on a policy that was not yet operational as there

was no evidence that it had been approved and adopted at that time

(Annexure AM1).

48.3 The Respondent’s conduct was discriminatory as it did not treat the

appointment of Chief Ndzameya Nhlabatsi in like manner.

49. In prayer 2 the Applicant applied that the Respondent be ordered to pay him

arrear salaries from January 2009 up March 2010 when he took early

retirement.

50. The Applicant told the Court in chief that he continued to report for duty until

April 2009 when found his computer missing and that thereafter his office was

locked. Because of this evidence by the Applicant the Respondent argued that

the Applicant’s application should be dismissed as he did not mention that

evidence in his founding affidavit. Further, the Respondent applied that the

Applicant’s application be dismissed because he did not amend his papers to

claim a pro-rata payment taking into account that the oral evidence revealed

that he was not reporting for duty on a daily basis, but he was in Parliament on

some other days of the week.

25

51. During cross examination the Applicant confirmed that he last attended to

work in April 2009 after he found his office locked and he realized that he

was no longer wanted there anymore.

52. The Applicant having succeeded in payer 1, the question now is; should the

Court make an order that he be paid for the whole period from January 2009

to March 2010 even when in his own evidence he told the Court that he

stopped reporting for work in April 2009.

53. It is critical to clearly appreciate the Applicant’s application before the Court.

The Applicant’s case is that he stopped reporting for duty because of the

unlawful conduct of the Respondent of stopping his salary without any prior

consultation. Secondly, the Applicant’s evidence revealed that there was

another employee of the Respondent, Chief Ndzameya Nhlabatsi who was

also appointed to be a Member of Parliament but his salary was not stopped.

The Applicant’s therefore claims that he was unfairly discriminated against

and that the Respondent acted in terms of a policy document that was not yet

operational. The Applicant has not filed a claim for compensation based on

constructive dismissal by the Respondent.

26

54. The Respondent did not deny that whilst Chief Ndzameya Nhlabatsi was a

Member of Parliament he was paid his full salary. RW2 told the Court that

there was an arrangement that was reached between the Respondent and Chief

Ndzameya Nhlabatsi. RW2 failed to tell the Court why the same arrangement

was not made with the Applicant.

55. The Applicant however told the Court that he stopped going to work in April

2009. To order the Respondent to pay salaries even for the period that the

Applicant did not work would be unfair to the Respondent.

56. The Clerk to Parliament, Ndvuna Dlamini, told the Court in his affidavit that

Parliament does not sit in January and that it is usually officially opened

during the month of February. He stated further that even after the official

opening, Parliament does resume business immediately after that but it usually

sits to debate the Appropriation Bill and Budget Speech during the month of

March. It was therefore possible for the Applicant to report for duty every day

during the period between January 2009 and April 2009 as Parliament

business had not yet begun in earnest. The Respondent as the employer had at

its disposal the time sheets to refer to in order disprove the Applicant’s

evidence that he was reporting for duty every day during this period, but it

failed to do so.

27

57. Taking into account all the evidence before the Court, the circumstances of

the case, the interest of justice fairness and equity, the Court will make an

order in terms of prayers 1, 2 and 3 of the Notice of Motion. The arrear

salaries in terms of prayer 2 will be only for the period of January 2009 up to

April 2009 when the Applicant stopped reporting for duty.

58. The members agree.

For Applicant: Mr. S.M. Simelane

(Attorney at Simelane-Mtshali Attorneys)

For Respondent: Mr. M. Sibandze

(Attorney at Musa M. Sibandze Attorneys)