Industrial Court Faults Employment Termination of OMADACHI OTACHE, Orders Firm To Pay N382, 633.86 Salary In Lieu, N700,000 Cost Of Action Within 30 Days

• 1844 Wednesday 23rd January 2019

 

Portharcourt – His Lordship, Hon. Justice P. I. Hamman of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Portharcourt Judicial Division on Wednesday 16^th January 2019 in a judgment declared that employment termination of MR. OMADACHI OTACHE (CLAIMANT) By NOTORE CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD (DEFENDANT) remain terminated though wrongful having failed to pay salary in lieu of notice, ordered defendant to pay Claimant the sum of N382, 633.86 for one month salary in lieu of notice, and 700,000 cost of suit within 30 days.

 

The Originating processes were amended sequel to an order of court made on 1^st of June, 2016 wherein the Claimant sought against the Defendant among others; A declaration that the dismissal of the Claimant for no ascribed reasons amounts to an unlawful breach of contract of employment, witch-hunting, intimidation and victimization and is wrongful, illegal and unlawful for the reasons and mode of execution. An order of court directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of N382, 633.86 per month and all other monthly entitlements from March, 2015 when the Defendant stopped payment of Claimant’s salary until final determination of this case.

 

Likewise, The sum of N400,000,000.00 being and representing general damages for breach of contract and unlawful dismissal of Claimant as well as emotional and psychological trauma the Claimant have been subject to as a result of Defendant’s action.

 

It is the case of the Claimant that, he was employed by the Defendant in 2009 as a contract staff and subsequently regularized as a full staff. The Claimant alleged that, on the 27^th of September, 2013, the office in Onne received a letter from the Group Managing Director alleging some unethical practices in the Defendant.

 

According to the Claimant, he was not among those that wrote the petition and during interrogated by the Ethics Committee, he gave his honest view which did not go down well with some senior staff of the Defendant that were allegedly involved in the alleged unethical practices.

 

That he did not know that the Defendant did not put in place any mechanism to protect those who testified before the Ethics Committee and when some of the senior staff of were indicted, the Defendant suspended them for a period of over one (1) year.

 

The Claimant further averred that, when the said officers had their suspension lifted and resumed duties, they began to oppress, victimize and repress those they suspected as being behind the petition and the testimony before the Ethics Committee.

 

That sometimes in the month of March 2015, when he reported for work, he was asked to leave the Defendant’s premises by armed mobile policemen accompanied by his superviosr after which he was subsequently dismissed.

 

According to the Claimant, even though the dismissal letter was prepared, same was neither given to him nor has he been paid his salary due to the overzealous behavior of the Defendant’s staff.

 

That contrary to the Defendant’s Policy Manual, the Claimant was not given opportunity to respond to any allegation raised against him and no notice of dismissal was given to him nor was he informed of the reason for his dismissal.

 

The defendant maintained that the identities of all those that testified were closely guarded and were never revealed to anyone other than members of the Committee.

 

That the Defendant is not in the know of any negative statement given to the Ethics Committee by the Claimant against any of the Defendant’s senior staff, and none of the Defendant’s senior staff was indicted and/or suspended for a period of one year or any other period following the testimony of the Claimant before the Committee.

 

According to the Defendant, the services of the Claimant are no longer required by the Defendant and the termination of his appointment was not based on malice, witch-hunting or victimization as alleged by the Claimant.

 

The Defendant, therefore, urged the court to dismiss this suit in its entirety with substantial cost as same is frivolous, vexatious and an attempt to extort money from the Defendant.

 

After careful analysis of all the processes filed, and the submissions of the learned Counsel from both sides. The Court presided by Hon. Justice P. I. Hamman expressed thus;

 

“There is nothing before the court either by way of pleadings or evidence (oral or documentary) indicating that the Claimant was either informed of any misconduct committed by him or given any opportunity to defend any allegation before any Disciplinary Committee as envisaged.

 

“The conduct of the Defendant in stopping the Claimant’s salary is enough proof that the Claimant’s services were no longer required by the Defendant.

 

“Having, therefore, failed to serve the Claimant the requisite notice before terminating his employment and having failed to pay him in lieu of notice, the termination of the Claimant though wrongful, the said employment remains terminated.

 

The court ordered defendant to pay Claimant the sum of N382, 633.86 which is one month salary in lieu of notice, 700,000 cost of suit within 30 days.

 

Share Via WhatsApp