Court orders payment of five years salary
The National Industrial Court, Ibadan division, Oyo State, has ordered the reinstatement of twenty-eight staff of Federal Polytechnic Ede, Osun State sacked illegally by the management in 2018 as a result of directive of Federal government.
Delivery the judgment in suit number, NICN/OS/04/2018, Justice Opeloye Ogunbowale ordered that the management of Federal Polytechnic Ede ordered that Federal Polythecnic Ede to pay the 28 staff all their due entitlements for the work done and to do from January 2018 till date.
The Court refused the claim of damages of N28m filed by the staff through their counsel, Barrister Yemi Abiona, however awarded a cost of N500,000 against the Federal Polythecnic Ede in favour of the dismissed staff.
Read Also: Tinubu charges APC governors to remain servants to their people
Justice Ogunbowale said “the disengagement of the claimants from the service of the defendants is ultra vires of it’s authorities and a breach of Section 17 of the Federal Polythecnic Act, 2004, provision of the Federal Polythecnic Ede Staff Manual, 2018, violation of the claimants’ fundamental human rights to fear hearing and rights of employment until mandatory retirement age of 65″.
He noted that from the preponderance of evidence including documentary evidence before the court, it was established that the contract between the claimants; Mr Cornelius Nwokoro, Mr Ayodele Oni, Thomas Aborowa, Fatai Adeeyo and 24 others and defendant was that with statutory flavour, therefore “subsequent termination and disengagement of their contract of employment is subject to their respective letters of employment, confirmation of employment, provisions of the Federal Polythecnic Act, 2004 and regulated by the Federal Government of Nigeria public service rules”
The Court discontenanced the submission of the Counsel to the Polythecnic, Mr Oluremi Ojo that the dismissal of the claimants from service was based on a Federal Government policy issued in 2007 to MDAs to outsource security personnel, saying such directive can not be applicable to the claimants whose appointments are based on statutory provisions.
