Not reportable
	Of interest to other judges
in the labour court of South Africa 
held at DURBAN
	case no: d 306/11
In the matter between:

COMMUNICATION WORKERS UNION	Applicant
and
THLALAFENG PLACEMENTS	First respondent
D SIYAKHANE	Second respondent

judgment
STEENKAMP J:
Introduction 
[1]	This is an application for leave to appeal against my judgement in an urgent application handed down on one June 2011. In that judgement, I dismissed an application for a rule nisi declaring the respondents to be in contempt of a court order; joining the second respondent to the proceedings; and permitting him to detention in prison for a period of 15 days.
[2]	The applicant only applied for leave to appeal against a portion of the judgement. It does so on the following grounds:
2.1	that I erred in finding that the respondents had complied with the court order of the Honourable Justice Cele dated 19th of April 2011; and
2.2	that I erred in finding that the respondents had not acted mala fide.
[3]	The issue that is raised by the proposed appeal is what is the proper meaning of the consent order of 19 April 2011 that reads as follows:
“The respondent is ordered to immediately reinstate the remuneration and further benefits of the contract of employment to the applicants members with effect from April 2011."
[4]	The further ground is that, on a reasonable interpretation of the order, the respondents acted mala fide and fraudulently.
[5]	In my judgement, I noted obiter that the conclusion to which I have come did not formally with any sense of comfort. It stands to reason that there is a reasonable prospect of another court coming to a different conclusion.
[6]	Leave to appeal is granted. Costs are to be costs in the appeal.

_______________________
STEENKAMP J

Date of judgment:	5 August 2010 
For the applicants:	M Pillemer SC
Instructed by:	Brett Purdon attorneys, Durban.
For the respondent:	M de Klerk
Instructed by		Mashiane, Moodley & Monama Inc.