RAVINDER v NORTH-WEST UNIVERSITY MAFIKENG CAMPUS [2026] ZALCJHB 12

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 13 April 2026; Labour Court of South Africa, Johannesburg

Name of Judge(s): Lewis AJ

Summary of Factual Matrix: 

Professor Ravinder was employed as a Professor at the Graduate School of Business and Government Leadership from 1 October 2016 until dismissal on 4 August 2021. Between December 2019 and February 2020, he attended 22 conferences in India and submitted reimbursement claims for hotel accommodation for five conferences. He was charged with misconduct: "Any act or behaviour which has an element of dishonesty and/or misappropriation... in that you are alleged to have submitted reimbursement claims for hotel accommodation... the said claims are believed to be a misrepresentation or fraudulent claims". 

Following disciplinary proceedings, he was found guilty and dismissed. The arbitrator found the dismissal substantively fair. Professor Ravinder sought review.

Summary of Findings:

"[11] The test to be applied under section 145 is clear. This Court may only intervene if the decision reached by the arbitrator is one that a reasonable decision-maker could not reach. In a matter such as the present one, where the applicant relies on what are contended to be reviewable irregularities in the assessment of the evidence, the Court must be cautious to ensure that the... In Gold Fields Mining South Africa (Pty) Ltd (Kloof Gold Mine) v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others, the Labour Appeal Court (LAC) noted that a review court is not required to consider every factor individually, consider how the arbitrator treated and dealt with each factor and then determine whether a failure by the arbitrator to deal with one or more factors amounted to a process related irregularity sufficient to set aside the award. The LAC cautioned against adopting a piecemeal approach since a review court must necessarily consider the totality of the available evidence."

"[13] In determining that issue, the arbitrator adopted the following approach: 13.1 He had regard to the applicable legal principles, namely, that in the employment context, a premium is placed on honesty, as dishonest conduct undermines the trust relationship on which the employment relationship is founded. Dishonesty need not amount to a criminal offence, but includes any act or omission involving deceit, including false statement or misrepresentation. 13.2 He further undertook a careful evaluation of the evidence by the respective parties, which he summarised and evaluated as follows: 13.2.1 On 26 November 2019, Ms Molete received an email from Professor Ravinder requesting that accommodation be booked for him. Upon examining the quote for accommodation in the amount of 25 000 Indian Rupees, she noted that it was for two adults and two children. She informed Professor Ravinder that the University only paid for its employees, and that, if his family were to accompany him, he would be liable for the additional cost. Professor Ravinder then telephoned her and stated that, whether the invoice reflected accommodation for one person or four persons, the amount would be the same. He thereafter sent an amended invoice describing the accommodation as being for a single person, although the amount remained unchanged. The arbitrator found this evidence demonstrated an intention on Professor Ravinder's part to claim not for himself, but also for his family. The submission of a claim for hotel accommodation that included his family was, on that basis, improper. 13.2.2 Ms Moolman requested Professor Ravinder to provide proof that he had reimbursed the relevant universities for his accommodation, in the form of cash slips or his bank statements. Professor Ravinder did not provide cash receipts. In addition, Ms Moolman only saw his wife's bank statements during the arbitration hearing. There was accordingly no record of the payment made by Professor Ravinder to the various hotels. At the time, Professor Ravinder addressed an email to her in which he stated that he made cash payments, and that whenever he travelled, he carried cash in the form of Dollars, Euros, Rupees and Rands. 13.2.3 Mr Motara investigated Professor Ravinder's claims and found that the relevant invoices had been paid by the organisers of the conferences, not by Professor Ravinder. Professor Ravinder was unable to produce any cash slips or other proof to substantiate his assertion that he had reimbursed them in cash. 13.2.4 Professor Ravinder's version — that he paid his accommodation in order to secure a waiver of his registration fee — was inherently improbable, particularly in circumstances where he had been invited to attend the conferences. Moreover, the invoices themselves reflected that his accommodation was paid by the conference organisers, consistent with the position in respect of the other 17 conferences he attended. 13.2.5 The evidence adduced by Professor Ravinder in support of his version — both vive voce and by way of affidavit — was unpersuasive. It was not supported by any documentary proof and was, in material respects, inconsistent with the contemporaneous documentary evidence, in particular the hotel invoices. It was also inherently improbable that Professor... paying the hotels directly."

"[14] The arbitrator accordingly found the University's version to be more probable than that of Professor Ravinder, on the basis that it was consistent with the objective, contemporaneous evidence, whereas Professor Ravinder's version was not. On the totality of the evidence, that conclusion was reasonable."

As such,the Court held that the grounds of review impermissibly adopted a piecemeal approach, isolating discrete aspects while ignoring the evidentiary matrix. The arbitrator correctly identified the issue (whether Professor Ravinder's conduct was dishonest), applied proper legal principles regarding dishonesty in employment, and undertook a careful evaluation of evidence. The finding that the University's version was more probable—being consistent with contemporaneous documentary evidence—was reasonable on the totality of evidence. The alleged failures to consider certain evidence (family attendance, clean record, contribution to University) were either unfounded or immaterial to the ultimate finding of dishonesty.

Order:

"1. The application is dismissed with each party to pay its own costs."