By Desire Emmanuel
After 19 years of termination of employment, the National Industrial Court has ordered the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) to reinstate 19 workers who were abruptly disengaged in 2007 and pay their salaries and entitlements from 2007 till date.
Justice Salisu Danjidda of the Uyo Division of the court declared the failure of the NPA to pay Mr Godwin Kuje and 18 others their wages, allowances and other emoluments as due, and failure to deploy them to their respective departments within the corporation as unlawful and a deliberate breach of the contract of employment and terms and conditions of service.
The court ordered the NPA to immediately deploy Mr Kuje and 18 others to their respective departments in line with their letters of appointment and place them at the appropriate cadre levels, with payment of their salaries, allowances, emoluments, yearly leave bonus, end of year Christmas bonus and benefits as they would have earned as per the terms in their various employment contracts from the 1st of April 2007 to the date of judgment.
Justice Danjidda also awarded the sum of N20 million general damages in favour of Mr Kuje and 18 others against the NPA following the non-payment of their salaries, which has caused significant inconvenience and financial hardship to them and the sum of N2 million as costs of action.
According to court documents, Kuje and 18 others submitted that they were offered appointment as Technical Trainees in 2003 under the NPA and that their probation was one year, and they completed their training in 2007, receiving salaries, allowances, bonuses, corporate IDs, and pension contributions, indicating a formal employment relationship.
They argued that since April 2007, the NPA stopped all payments and never formally terminated their appointments, while they participated in company-wide staff verification exercises conducted in 2006 and 2014.
In its defence, the NPA averred that it complied with the laid-down rules and procedures before Kuje and 18 others disengagement from service, and that they were notified of the directive of the Federal Ministry of Transport to close the Training School as well as the determination of their employment and that since April 2007, no services were rendered by Kuje and 18 others to the corporation to warrant their entitlement to salaries, leave bonus and emoluments.
The NPA also contended that the Conditions of Service do not apply to an employee whose employment has not been confirmed, and that subsequent confirmation is not a mandatory obligation on the corporation, adding that the case is statute-barred.
Opposing the argument, Kuje and 18 others, through their counsel, argued that it was clear from the appointment letters and actions of parties, including the issuance of staff identity cards, that they were not interns or students but employees of the NPA who were sent for technical training, which is akin to professional training/education which many organisations or businesses still do for their staff.
The counsel further contended that the NPA’s failure to terminate their appointments after the one-year probationary period implied automatic confirmation.
Delivering judgment, Justice Danjidda affirmed the jurisdiction of the court and held that the NPA relied on a repealed law, the Ports Act 1990, to argue that the action was statute-barred, and held that such reliance was misplaced as the law is no longer in force.
The judge also disagreed with the NPA’s contention that the employees were mere trainees, holding that the totality of evidence, including payment of salaries, issuance of staff identity cards and pension contributions clearly established an employment relationship.
He added that where the NPA continued to treat the staff as employees by paying salaries, issuing staff identity cards, enrolling them in pension schemes and failing to terminate their employment after probation, the court will deem their appointments confirmed by operation of law.
He therefore declared the NPA’s argument that the employees were lawfully disengaged as unsubstantiated, holding that no valid termination of employment was proved and that their employment, being one with statutory flavour, could not be terminated without strict compliance with statutory procedure.
