Just In: Industrial Court Orders Rivers State LG Service Commission To Pay Eneruwu John Retirement Benefits And Emoluments Within 60 Days

• 1702 Tuesday 30th November -0001

 

Owerri --His Lordship, Hon. Justice I. S. Galadima of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Owerri Judicial Division on Wednesday 3rd October, 2018 in a judgment ordered RIVERS STATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICE COMMISSION & Anor (Defendants) to fast track, process and pay ENERUWU I. JOHN (Claimant) all outstanding entitlements being his retirement benefits, perquisites and emoluments, up to 1/3/2015 within 60 days of pronouncing this judgment and in default, shall attract an interest of 10% per annum until final payment of the gross entitlements. The court maintained that unless the previous appointment of 1980 is terminated, the subsequent one (1982) cannot have any legal value whatsoever, therefore dismissed all prayers sought against the defendants.

 

In summary, the claimant through his counsel ISAH SEIDU Esq. filed this compliant dated 11^th of February, 2016 sought against the defendants among others; A declaration that the premature retirement of the Claimant vide a retrospective letter of retirement dated 30^th December, 2015 who (ordinarily) had till 1^st April, 2017 to remain in service is null, void and of no legal effect whatsoever. An order of the Honorable Court restoring the Claimant back to his post as Director of Administration/Head of Personnel Management in Asari Toru Local Government Area of Rivers State, Nigeria and also all the Claimant’s entitlements attaching thereto with effect from 1^st January, 2016. Likewise, A declaration that the Claimant’s employment subsists until 1^st April, 2020.

 

The Claimant alleges that he was employed by the then Bonny Local Government of Rivers State of Nigeria sometime in February, 1980 but that the said employment was terminated on the orders of the 1^st Defendant vide letter dated 22^nd December, 1981. A fresh employment letter was purportedly issued to him with effect from 1^st April, 1982 and the same was terminated in 1983 but in 1985, he was again reinstated. On the 23^rd of March, 2015 the Claimant was allegedly compulsorily retired by the 1^st Defendant for having purportedly served a minimum of 35 years in service. However, on the 21^st of May, 2015 as a result of the reviewal of his case sequel to his protest letter dated 24^th April, 2015, he was again reinstated. Regardless, by a letter dated 30^th December, 2015 this Claimant’s employment was purportedly finally terminated by letter of compulsory retirement retrospectively. The Claimant alleges that he ordinarily has till the 1^st of April, 2017 when he could have been retired legally from service or to 1^st April, 2020, whichever date this Court determines appropriate.

 

Based on these facts and in line with the evidence established in its behalf, the 1^st Defendant raised a lone issue for determination thus – “Whether the Claimant has proved his entitlement to the reliefs sought in this suit?”

 

It was first argued by Chief T.A. Amadi for the 1^st Defendant that since parties are also bound by their pleadings, this court must find that the Claimant had pleaded two different dates of first employment. They are firstly, the letter of 15^th of February, 1980 (which was allegedly terminated and which letter was accordingly never tendered by the Claimant in Court but by the 1^st Defendant.

 

Learned Counsel said that the Claimant as witness had admitted under cross examination that his employment is pensionable and that in deed, the 1^st Defendant had the right to retire him upon attaining 35 years in service which accordingly is from 1980 – 2015. It is claimed also that the Claimant had also admitted under cross examination that he would not be surprised if his record of service indicates that his employment did in fact begin in 1980.

 

The Claimant’s final written submissions was filed on the 20^th of March, 2018 where he raised issue Whether the Defendants were right to have relied on the Claimant’s letter of employment dated 15^th February, 1980 to retire the Claimant from the public service of the Rivers State Government instead of the letter of employment dated 19^th March, 1982 which is later in time?

 

On issue above, the Claimant’s Counsel Mr. Isah Seidu argued that since there was another letter of employment dated 1982, the former one became moribund.

 

After painstakingly and carefully read and understood all the processes filed by learned Counsel on either side, testimonies of the witnesses called at both in chief as well as under cross examination and evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted, the presiding Judge Hon. Justice I. S. Galadima expressed thus;

 

“However, the fact that the Claimant received a subsequent letter of appointment from the 1^st Defendant does not automatically make the 1^st letter of appointment moribund because the 1^st offer was never formally terminated as already found prior now. At best, it seems to me that the second letter merely reestablished the fact that the Claimant was employed by the 1^st Defendant. By the time the second letter was issued to the Claimant, he had already been serving as an employee of the 1^st Defendant for a period of precisely 2 years, 1 month and 4 days. If he had been terminated from the service, he should have been issued with a formal letter of termination stating clearly that he was no longer in the service of the 1^st Defendant and his salaries will most obviously had been stopped.

 

“Under employment law, the existence of a second or subsequent employment letter does not automatically extinguish a previous one. The prior employment must be legally and effectively determined by either the employer or the employee before a subsequent employment particularly by a civil servant, can become legal.” Justice Galadima stated.

 

His Lordship ordered Defendants to fast track, process and pay the Claimant all outstanding entitlements being his retirement benefits, perquisites and emoluments, up to 1/3/2015 within 60 days of pronouncing this judgment and in default, shall attract an interest of 10% per annum until final payment of the gross entitlements.

 

The Claimant is congratulated for giving 35 meritorious service years to his State and Local Government Areas and I wish him all the best in his retirement and future endeavors.

 

His Lordship dismissed the case without costs.

 

For Full Judgment, Click Here

Share Via WhatsApp