Media
- Home
- Details
PortHarcourt– Presiding Judge, His Lordship, Hon. Justice F. I. Kola-Olalere of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Portharcourt Division on Monday 19th November 2018 in a judgment declared as wrongful, the involuntary and forced resignation of Mohammed Zubair (claimant) from his employment with Keystone Bank Limited (defendant), ordered defendant to pay claimant the sum of N7,023,627.62 as compensation, and the sum of N8,175,808.31K only as his gratuity at his exit from the Bank within 60 days.
The claimant sought against the defendant among others; A Declaration that the Defendant’s refusal to pay the Claimant his end of service benefits in line with the Policy and as practiced by the Defendant in her previous retrenchment exercises of employees; particularly those of July and November 2013 amongst others; is wrongful, oppressive, unfair and contrary to the Defendant’s Policy (HCP Manual Revised 2013); which envisages fair treatment and equality to all employed staff.
Likewise, A Declaration that the Claimant is entitled to be paid his end of service benefits under the Gratuity Scheme having spent a minimum of nine (9) years, two (2) months in the services of the Defendant in line with the Defendant’s Policy Manual, to wit: gratuity payment of the sum of ₦10,199, 999.97K (Ten Million, One Hundred and Ninety-nine Thousand, Nine Hundred and Ninety-nine Naira, Ninety-seven Kobo) being the 100% of monthly total package (less bonus) multiplied by number of years spent in the services of the Defendant (7 years).
The case of the claimant as pleaded is that he was an employee of the defendant for a period of nine (9) years and two (2) months before his employment was determined on April 16, 2015. He continued that he was employed as a Senior Manager in February 2006 by Bank PHB, which was fully operational before it was nationalized by the Nigerian Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC) and the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) in 2011 to become the Keystone Bank Limited.
He went on that he tendered his involuntary resignation from the employment of the defendant following the advice given by the Defendant that it was struggling to cope with high cost/posting losses or undergoing restructuring, and that the Defendant’s Board/Management had approved that the Claimant and some of his colleagues and as such; the Defendant terminated his employment through redundancy. He was only paid basic salary in lieu of notice by the Defendant and nothing was paid to him as redundancy and gratuity.
The defendant averred that the Claimant did not join the services of the Defendant in February 2006 as a Senior Manager or at any other level at all as alleged and that the defendant was never a successor per se to the erstwhile Bank PHB but a distinct legal entity created on the 3rd day of August, 2016; which acquired the assets and certain liabilities of the said Bank PHB on the 5th of August, 2011; excluding the contract of employment between the claimant and the defunct Bank PHB. The defendant stated further that it did no declare the Claimant’s services redundant at any and so, the Claimant is not entitled to any payment for Redundancy.
The Bank again stated that the Claimant voluntarily tendered his resignation letter to the Defendant and that if payment were made to some exited staff of the defendant by the Bank, it was founded on the defendant’s financial realities at the time in question but denies that any of the ex-staff referred to by the Claimant were paid in accordance with the HCP Manual Revised in 2013.
Counsel for the defendant formulated issue for determination Whether the offer of employment by the Defendant to the Claimant amounts to transfer, retransfer, re-employment or redeployment of the Claimant’s erstwhile services in Bank PHB to the Defendant and; therefore, binding in determining the relationship between the parties.
Counsel to the claimant in his final written address, contended that onus rests on the Defendant to prove that its current financial position is weaker compared to its earlier financial position when it earlier made ex-gratia payments to exited staff before it can be excused from paying same to the Claimant.
After careful analysis of all the processes filed, the evidence led and the submissions of the learned Counsel from both sides. The Court presided by Hon. Justice F. I. Kola-Olalere expressed thus;
“This Court is not to allow to read into a term on which there was no agreement between the parties unless there is an ambiguity in the document of contract of employment.
“In the circumstance, I reject this line of argument of the claimant’s counsel and hold that Document C.2 does not state that the claimant’s employment with Bank PHB was transferred to the defendant.
“Consequently, I hold that the years of service of the claimant in Bank PHB were factored into his employment with and assumed by the defendant in his letter of Re: Employment in Document C.2.
“Furthermore, I hold that the employment of the claimant with the defendant was with effect from February 15, 2006.
“Therefore, I find and hold that the claimant is not entitled to any relief for redundancy because he was not declared redundant by the defendant as required the Defendant’s Human Capital Policies and Procedures (HCP) Manual Revised, 2013.
The court declared and held that the defendant inherited the liability on the claimant’s employment with Bank PHB; and so his employment with the defendant was with effect from February 15, 2006.
The Court also declared and held that the resignation of the claimant from his employment with the defendant was involuntary and forced; hence, it amounts to wrongful determination of his employment.
His Lordship also ordered defendant to pay claimant the sum of N7,023,627.62 as compensation for the wrongful determination of his employment, the sum of N8,175,808.31K only as his gratuity at his exit from the Bank within 60 days.
