the argument, this court must decline jurisdiction and send the matter back to the Industrial Court for determination of the merits. This, of course, is what this court will do irrespective of the outcome on the constitutional issue. The Industrial Court will then be enjoined to deal with the merits on the basis of the outcome on the constitutional issue. [11] The matter is before this court by order of a competent court, the Industrial Court. That order was not appealed against or challenged in any other way, hence it remains valid and binding. Is the respondent entitled to challenge it through the back door, as it were? The respondent relies on the case of MINISTRY OF TOURISM AND ENVIROMENTAL AFFAIRS AND ANOTHER v STEPHEN ZUKE AND ANOTHER5. In this case the employee’s complaint was that he had not been afforded administrative justice in terms of Section 33 of the constitution and the court, invoking the principle of avoidance, held that the matter was resolvable without reference to the constitutional provision, in that audi alterum patem is part of Labour Law, the dispute being between an employer and an employee. [12] I am in respectful agreement with the Zuke judgment, but to what extent does it assist the respondent on the present 5 (96/2017) [2019] SZSC 37 (2019) 10