Nevertheless, it is important that parties intending to settle their disputes with the CCMA understand that the LRA imposes restrictions on the amount of compensation that can be awarded for various disputes. Employers and workers should therefore approach the bargaining table on a rational and practical basis, with the provisions of Section 194 and various other factors to be used as the basis for examining the adequacy of the transaction offer. Parties representing the employer or worker at the CCMA must also ensure that they are properly mandated to enter into transaction agreements on behalf of their contracting entities, otherwise difficulties may arise. In dismissing the appeal, the Labour Tribunal found that it was not competent to decide the dispute, since there is no provision in the LRA that gives the Court the jurisdiction to decide the validity of a settlement agreement. In other words, when a worker asserts that the mutual separation agreement he has entered into is not valid (due to coercion or misrepresentation), the CCMA should decide whether the mutual separation agreement is valid. If it finds that the mutual separation agreement is not valid, the agreement should be repealed and the CCMA should decide whether to dismiss unjustifiably. The jurisdiction of the CCMA is not automatically distorted by the fact that the parties have entered into a reciprocal separation agreement. Section 191 [of the Labour Relations Act (LRA)] is the defamation that the CCMA must make a decision in the event of a dismissal being called into question in deciding whether a worker claiming a right to unfair dismissal has been rejected in the service recognized by Section 186 (1) of the LRA]. In this example, I do not end on the reason that the CCMA does not have the authority to make this decision in the exercise of its jurisdiction to determine the existence or absence of dismissal in areas such as this, when it is claimed that an agreement may be annulled because of its forced source. In these circumstances, requiring an applicant to refer a contractual dispute as a precondition for arbitration of an unjustified right of termination to that court would negate the legal objective of informal and expeditious dispute resolution and would introduce a requirement that does not reflect the [LRA]“ – In her closing reasons statement, she stated that „the public and, indeed, our courts have a strong interest in enforcing these agreements.