The company had neglected to send the prescribed Section 52 notice of the planned retrenchments to the department of mining's minerals and mining development board (MMDB), it said in a statement.

The board had to inform the minister of mining of any retrenchments or restructuring in the mining industry.

"The board should be informed of planned retrenchments in order to see to it that the company's social plan in the case of retrenchments is implemented."

Section 52 of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act required a company to inform the board of planned retrenchments.

"This must be done if a mine intends to retrench more than 500 employees or 10 percent of its labour force (whichever figure is the lowest)."

According to Solidarity, DRDGold originally planned on retrenching nearly 1 300 employees at its Blyvooruitzicht mine, but did not inform the MMDB.

The union had also claimed the company failed to involve it in consultations about rentrenchments, and had submitted an application to the Labour Court for an urgent interdict against DRDGold.

"Solidarity demands that the process be restarted and that the correct procedures be followed so that the employees can get the protection to which they are entitled."

DRDGold spokesman James Duncan said the company would probably let the judicial process take its course.

"They've had a say and we've had a say... Our position is unequivocal and it seems theirs is too. The bottom line is Solidarity is not an issue for DRDGold ... they don't have recognition at Blyvooruitzicht and we are under no obligation to engage with them."