By Desire Emmanuel
The National Industrial Court on Wednesday, July 15, quashed a public service rule which barred employees from suing their employers, saying such a rule has no substance.
Justice Bashar Alkali of the Kaduna Division of the court declared that the provisions of the Public Service Rules (2005 edition) of Kaduna State which makes the filing of a suit by an employee against his employer a serious act of misconduct is void to the extent of its conflict with the rights of the employees to seek redress in court.
The court declared that the verbal threats of dismissal given by the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Education, Kaduna State, to Mr Abel Jonathan on June 16, 2019, as wrongful, null and void and liable to be set aside.
The judge granted an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Kaduna State government, Ministry of Education, Science And Technology, and two others, their agents, representatives assigns, howsoever and whomsoever, among others, from taking any further steps to discipline Mr Jonathan only because he filed suit against the state government and awarded the exemplary damages in the sum of N500,000 for the act of oppression practiced on Mr Jonathan.
According to available court documents, Jonathan submitted that while serving as a teacher at Government Secondary School, the Kaduna State government, Ministry of Education, Science and Technology allocated a house to him through a letter dated June 22, 2015, where he resided and committed to his teaching position without any productivity complaints.
He further averred that in 2015, the state government, the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, and two others implemented a policy to eject teachers living in the school quarters but who were teaching elsewhere, forming an Ejection Task Force.
The Task Force forcibly removed his properties from the house and locked it thereafter. To date, his personal effects have been carted away by some persons unknown to him due to the action of the state government.
As a result, Mr Jonathan filed a suit in the Industrial Court regarding the ill-treatment he experienced, which is still pending.
Further, the state government and Ministry of Education, Science and Technology issued a query to him via a letter on June 25, 2019, on the grounds of an alleged serious act of misconduct for an employee to sue his employer while in active service and in line with the Public Service Rule, to which he responded the next day.
Mr Jonathan sought a declaration that the provisions of the Public Service Rules (2005 edition) of Kaduna State which makes the filing of a suit by an employee against his employer a serious act of misconduct for which the employee is liable to be punished is void to the extent of its conflict with the rights of the Claimant to seek redress in Court by virtue of Section 6(6) and Chapter IV of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), among others.
In their defence, the Kaduna State government, Ministry of Education, Science And Technology, and two others averred that allocation of staff quarters to persons in employment of the state government is not a right but a privilege.
They added that while other teachers affected by the policy complied with the directives, Mr Jonathan, despite being aware and fully informed, refused to comply.
They maintained that after all efforts to ensure that Jonathan complied with the new directives failed, a query dated February 23, 2016, in line with the provisions of the Public Service Rules, was issued to him.
Subsequently, a second query dated June 25, 2019, was issued to Jonathan. Since both queries were issued to him, they said no adverse steps were taken against him.
Delivering his judgment, Justice Alkali held that no Public Service Rule makes filing a suit against an employer gross misconduct, and the implication is that the defendants issued a second query out of their sheer ignorance of what constitutes gross misconduct under the Public Service.
The judge reiterated that the constitution is supreme, and any law/act of a person or authority which deprives a citizen of access to justice is void.
“In view of unchallenged evidence of the claimant, the court will have no option but to believe him where he stated that the permanent secretary of the second defendant intimidated him with the threat of dismissal.
“Threatening an employee with dismissal on account of seeking judicial redress is not only asinine, but also it is a medieval act in the 21st Century. I so hold,” Justice Alkali ruled.
