His Lordship, Hon. Justice Zaynab Bashir of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria sitting in Portharcourt has dismissed that matter filed by MR YAKO ERASTUS and two others against CHAKEL SECURITY LIMITED and GEO-FLUIDS PLC in its entirety for lacking merit.
The court held that the trial of the Claimants in 2012 truncated their availability for posting by the security firm and that cannot be said to amount to dismissal or termination of employment.
On the 13th of March, 2019, the Claimants sought against the Defendants for A declaration that the refusal by the 1st and 2nd Defendants to pay the Claimants salaries since from November 2012 till date amount to dismissal or termination of the contract of employment.
Likewise, An order compelling the 1st and 2nd Defendants (CHAKEL SECURITY LIMITED and GEO-FLUIDS PLC) to pay N20, 000.00 per month for each of the Claimants from November 2012 till the determination of the suit and the sum of Two Million Naira for damages.
From facts, the claimants as private security personnel worked for 1st defendant and were posted to the 2nd Defendant where they worked and the last time they were paid their monthly salary was in October 2012.
The Claimants averred further that sometime in 2012, the 2nd Defendant alleged that a large quantity of “base oil†was missing from its tanks and got the Police involved, that they were prosecuted at the Magistrate court with the trial commencing sometime in November 2012 and ending sometime in May 2014 upon which the Claimants were discharged and acquitted.
Claimants posited that the Defendants in refusing to pay their salaries since November 2012 till date had caused them loss and same amounts to injustice.
CHAKEL SECURITY LIMITED submitted that as a result of the said incident the 2nd Defendant terminated the contract which meant that the Claimants no longer had location to cover and were immediately notified.
1st Defendant posited that as a result, the Claimants were suspended and directed to return the 1st Defendant’s property including identity card which decision was communicated to the Claimants individually both orally and in writing but they refused to collect the suspension letter and no longer entitled to a salary.
1st Defendant added that upon the suspension, the Claimants never returned to 1st Defendant save the 2nd Claimant on record who came back and was some time in 2014 considered and his suspension lifted.
Counsel added that the Claimants have failed to prove before the Court that they were available for posting and that the 1st Defendant failed or refused to post or contract them out to its client.
In an argument, claimants counsel contended that the withholding or refusal by the 1st Defendant to pay the salaries of the Claimants created an unfavourable working condition for the Claimants and thus amount to a constructive and wrongful dismissal of the Claimants.
Delivering the Judgment, Justice Zaynab Bashir held that salaries are to be paid for work done even though it is the obligation of the Employer to provide work for an employee who is available to work.
“The Claimants did not at any point establish the fact that they were at work in any location, be it the 2nd Defendant or any other location while the trial was ongoing or afterwards. They did not establish that they were working for the 1st Defendant between November 2012 till date.
“The trial of the Claimants in 2012 truncated their availability for posting by the 1st Defendant and that cannot be said to amount to dismissal or termination of employment.
“Also, the fact that the 2nd Claimant made himself available and was re-engaged and is currently engaged by a client of the 1st Defendant lends credence to the fact that the Defendant did not terminate the employment of the Claimants.
In all, the court dismissed the case in its entirety for lacking merit.
