Industrial Court Upholds Appointment Termination of Simon Gulesh By The Gov. Council, Plateau State College Of Agriculture

• 1910 Friday 16th February 2018

 

Jos –His Lordship, Hon. Justice K. I. Amadi of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Jos Judicial division on Wednesday 13th February 2019 in a judgment validated the termination of employment of MR. SIMON B. GULESH (claimant) by THE GOVERNING COUNCIL, PLATEAU STATE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE GARKAWA (1 ^st defendant), dismissed the suit in its entirety for lacking merit.

 

The Claimant commenced this case by a writ of general form of complaint, sought against the Defendants among others: AN ORDER declaring that the termination of the Claimant’s appointment by the 1^st and 2 ^nd Defendants via a letter dated 19^th December 2014 is wrongful, unlawful and therefore null and void.

 

Likewise, AN ORDER reinstating the Claimant’s appointment with the 2 ^nd Defendant and all his salaries emoluments, entitlements, and all other rights which were affected before and after the termination of the Claimant’s appointment by the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants be paid for and given to Claimant.

 

The Claimant who was a staff of PLATEAU STATE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE GARKAWA (2^ndDefendant) and former Chairman of NON-ACADEMIC STAFF UNION OF EDUCATIONAL AND ASSOCIATES INSTITUTIONS PLATEAU STATE COUNCIL COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, GARKAWA (4^th Defendant) had his appointment terminated due to alleged financial misappropriation of funds that were contributed by the members of the 4^th Defendant for the purchase of a bus.

 

The learned counsel for the 4^th defendant in his own final written address raised issues for determination Whether the claimant has established a reasonable case against the 4^th defendant before this Hon. Court to entitle him to the claims sought and whether or not the claimant can be disciplined by the 1^st defendant.

 

Counsel argued that THE GOVERNING COUNCIL, PLATEAU STATE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE GARKAWA 1^st defendant acted accordingly in dismissing the claimant that the committee found him culpable and was asked to refund the misappropriated and unaccounted funds. That it was after the claimant’s refusal to refund all the misappropriated funds that the 1 ^st defendant who has the power to discipline its staff issued letter of termination of appointment to the claimant. Counsel urged the Court to dismiss this case.

 

Counsel submitted that from the exhibits presented before the court, the 1 ^st and 2^nd defendants followed due process as laid down in the Condition of Service before the termination of the Appointment of the claimant, urged the Court to dismiss the claim with punitive cost same being vexatious and lacking in merit.

 

In opposition, the learned counsel for the claimant argued that a close look at the said Section xiv quoted in the letter of termination of appointment of the claimant more particularly xiv (1) relating to verbal and written warning and xiv (I)(1), shows that the 1^st and 2^nd defendants did not comply with the conditions of service of the employment of the claimant before terminating the claimant’s appointment, that the only warning letter issued to the claimant did not comply with the provision of section xiv sub (1) despite the fact that the provision of Section xiv (1) made it mandatory.

 

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

 

“In this case exhibits DIC and D1F are warning letters to the claimant. The claimant did not plead nor give any evidence to show his own department and or section. He did not plead nor give any evidence on the person that is his head of department or section, consequently, the warning letter given to the claimant cannot be vitiated on this ground.

 

“I have looked the pleadings of the claimant in this case together with his witness statement on oath; it is very clear that the Claimant suppressed completely the facts of agreement to buy a bus, the contributions made to that effect, the fact that the bus was not eventually bought and did not state what happened to the money.

 

“The fact that the said warning letters did not contain the exert words used in the conditions of service did not diminish their content and or message, I, therefore, hold that this case is lacking in merit. It is hereby refused."

 

The court dismissed the suit in its entirety for lacking merit.

For Full Judgment, Click Here

Share Via WhatsApp