Download PDF
HOTEL AND PERSONAL SERVICES SENIOR STAFF ASSOCIATION AND TOURIST COMPANY OF NIGERIA PLC (NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT) HON. JUSTICE B.A.ADEJUMO - PRESIDENT PROF. B.B. KANYIP - MEMBER MR. M.A.B.ATILOLA - MEMBER SUIT NO: NIC/14/2002 DATE OF JUDGMENT - 27TH OCTOBER, 2004 LABOUR LAW National Industrial Court – Interpretation jurisdiction of - Interpretation of collective agreement - Duty on applicant to indicate provisions for required interpretation. LABOUR LAW National Industrial Court - Jurisdiction of -Applicant activating - Need for to disclose cause of action. NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT Jurisdiction of- Applicant activating – Need for to disclose cause of action. NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT Jurisdiction of - National Industrial Court -Interpretation jurisdiction of - Interpretation of collective agreement - Duty on applicant to indicate provisions for interpretation. ISSUE Whether the Applicant’s case lacks merit. FACTS Mr. Richard Akpalikoko, a member of the Applicant, worked with the Respondent as an accountant. He was suspended from work on the ground of being linked with certain missing funds. The police were called in to investigate the matter. He was not found guilty and so was recalled from suspension. Upon resumption, he tendered his written resignation from the company, which was accepted. His entitlements were calculated. When he went to collect same, he found that it was N700,000 (Seven Hundred Thousand Naira) short, the sum having been deducted for no just cause. He refused to sign for the entitlement and formally complained to his union, which took up the matter. The Federal Ministry of Labour was involved in the matter and indeed mediated/conciliated on it, but all to no avail as the Respondent insisted that ifs stance was correct. It was at this point that the Applicant filed the present action activating the interpretation jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court under sections 15 and 20 of the Trade Disputes Act. The Applicant, therefore, requested the National Industrial Court to interpret the negotiated conditions of service/collective agreement. The parties filed written addresses and also addressed the court orally. HELD (Dismissing the suit): 1. On Need for an applicant to disclose a cause of action in activating jurisdiction of National lndustrial Court - It is one thing to activate jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court, it is another to disclose a cause of action remediable under the law. In the instant case, the Applicant wanted the court to interpret Exhibit A under sections 15 and 20 of the Trade Disputes Act without pointing to any provision in Exhibit A that should be interpreted. It was therefore clear that the Applicant wanted to avoid or evade the processes of sections 3, 5, 8 and 13 of the Trade Disputes Act. The court consequently dismissed the applicant’s originating summons. 2. On Need for an applicant activating interpretation jurisdiction of National Industrial Court to indicate provisions of collective agreement for interpretation The power/jurisdiction to interpret is a positive and direct one. A provision or term must be indicated for interpretation. Interpretation cannot be in vacuum. If the desire is that all the terms of a collective agreement are to be interpreted, this must be indicated with sufficient particularity to enable both the court and the opposing party to know what interpretation the applicant is seeking. All these were lacking in the Applicant’s application before the court.