Judgment No. SC 12/18 Chamber Application No. SC 179/15 is because in the same breath it confesses that the judgment was given pursuant to an application for dismissal of its appeal because of its failure to file heads of argument timeously. It is therefore plain that the applicant’s appeal was dismissed for want of compliance with the Rules. Nowhere in its grounds of appeal does the applicant allege that it filed its heads of argument timeously. In my view, the applicant having failed to file its heads of argument within the prescribed time limit, it ought to have applied for rescission of judgment in terms of s 92C. The section confers a wide discretion on a judge of the labour Court to rescind his own decisions including those given in the absence of a party or in error. The section provides as follows: “(1) Subject to this section, the Labour Court may, on application, rescind or vary any determination or order— (a) which it made in the absence of the party against whom it was made; or (b) which the Labour Court is satisfied is void or was obtained by fraud or a mistake common to the parties; or (b) in order to correct any patent error. (2) The Labour Court shall not exercise the powers conferred by subsection (1)– (a) except upon notice to all the parties affected by the determination or order concerned; or (b) in respect of any determination or order which is the subject of a pending appeal or review. (3) Where an application has been made to the Labour Court to rescind or vary any determination or order in terms of subsection (1), the Labour Court may direct that— (a) the determination or order shall be carried into execution; or (b) execution of the determination or order shall be suspended pending the decision upon the application; upon such terms as the Labour Court may fix as to security for the due performance of the determination or order or any variation thereof” 5