JUDGMENT NO. CCZ 16/2016 CONST. APPLICATION CCZ 4/2016 (Section 97(4)) was repealed by s 34 of Act 7 of 2005 but the provision on interim measures pending appeal was retained under s 92E(3) of the Act. The argument that s 92E (2) violates the right to equal protection of the law cannot stand, when the Act clearly provides remedies that protect the interests of both parties. Section 92E(2) has the effect of protecting the rights of the party in whose favour the determination or decision was given whilst the party against whom the determination or decision was given exercises his or her right of appeal. As a way of providing protection of the rights of the appellant in the event of a successful appeal, s 92E(3) gives such a party an opportunity to secure from the Labour Court an interim determination suspending the execution of the decision appealed against. The Labour Court is in a position to strike a balance between the competing interests of the parties. Both parties have equal opportunity to present their case to the court. Provision for an interim determination made by the Labour Court if the justice of the case requires is an important protective remedy for securing a determination by an independent party. The applicant had the right to appeal to the Labour Court and at the same time apply for stay of execution pending finalisation of the appeal. The facts show that the applicant chose not to exercise the right to apply for an interim determination. It merely noted an appeal to the Labour Court. It sought to act to protect its rights when its property was attached in execution. The applicant is before the Court not because there is no remedy provided by the law for the protection of its rights or that the remedy is an inadequate protection. It is here because for reasons known to itself it failed to take advantage of the remedy designed or the protection of its rights. 7