The Hon. President of the National Industrial Court, His Lordship, Hon. Justice Benedict Kanyip, PhD has declared the employment termination of one Oladejo Elizabeth on purported redundancy as wrongful, ordered NTA-Star TV to pay her the sum of N333,060.00 (Three Hundred and Thirty-Three Thousand, Sixty Naira) as monthly remuneration from June 2018 to November 2018 within 30 days.
The Court held that the reason of redundancy given by the firm has not been justified as required by law.
From facts, the claimant’s – Oladejo Elizabeth had submitted that the termination of her employment as a result of a purported redundancy is irregular, null and void that she had fixed-term employment, claimed for the balance of her monthly remuneration covering the period up to the end of her fixed-term employment.
In defence, the defendant’s NTA-Star TV claimed that the claimant while on probation proceeded on a study leave without pay, and neglected her duties that the harsh economic situation affected the fortunes of the firm, which made the company to declared some staff in the company redundant including the claimant, that the redundancy benefit has been paid to her by the company.
The firm asked the Court to dismiss the claimant’s case as lacking in merit, unfounded, frivolous and an act of gold-digging in the interest of justice.
In opposition to the redundancy claim by the firm, the claimant submitted that somebody is still working in the position of a data analyst with the firm, which negates the claim that her position as a data analyst in the defendant’s organization was redundant, urged the court to declare that her termination as a result of a purported declaration of redundancy is irregular, null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
Delivering the judgment, the presiding Judge, Hon. Justice Benedict Kanyip held that claimant was on a fixed term contract that the reason of redundancy given by firm has not been justified as required by law.
“In like manner, the defendant cannot as it did in the letter of redundancy say that the claimant was redundant as they could not find an alternative for him and so his services are no longer needed, and yet fill the same position of the claimant with another person. What happened is simply that the defendant terminated the employment of the claimant, Nothing else.
“In not justifying the termination of the claimant’s employment, the said termination is wrong. The argument of the defendant that the claimant proceeded on one-year study leave without formal or written approval from the defendant, which is a clear act of neglect of duty leaving her duty post, amounts to gross misconduct, is an argument that holds no ground.”