JUDGMENT NO. CCZ 16/2016 CONST. APPLICATION CCZ 4/2016 The first question for determination is whether s 92 E(2) of the Act infringes or limits the right to equal protection of the law enshrined in s 56(1) of the Constitution. Secondly, whether s 98(14) of the Labour Court is also contrary to the right to equal protection of the law and perpetuates an unfair labour standard. It is the view of the Court that neither section of the Act whose constitutional validity of which is challenged is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution referred to by the applicant. Section 92(E) of the Act provides: “92E Appeals to the Labour Court generally (1) An appeal in terms of this Act may address the merits of the determination or decision appealed against. (2) An appeal in terms of subsection (1) shall not have the effect of suspending the determination or decision appealed against. (3) Pending the determination of an appeal the Labour Court may make such interim determination in the matter as the justice of the case requires.” It is clear from submissions made on its behalf that the applicant has fallen into the mistake of reading the provisions of s 92E(2) in isolation from the rest of the section. Such a piecemeal approach to the law offends against the settled rule of interpretation to the effect that legislative provisions must be read in their context, and construed with proper regard to the subject matter the instrument deals with and the object it seeks to achieve. A statute should be construed so that effect is given to all its provisions, so that no part will be inoperative or superfluous, void or insignificant. A court must not in expounding a statute be guided by a single sentence or 5