Download PDF
The claimant filed a complaint on the 23rd December 2009 seeking the following reliefs: 1. A declaration that the purported termination of the employment of the claimant who is a union leader in the employment of the defendants by the defendants was based on the claimant’s union activities. 2. A declaration that the purported termination of the employment of the claimant who is a union leader in the employment of the defendants by the defendants based on the claimant’s union activities is unconstitutional, illegal, null and void and therefore a nullity and of no effect whatsoever or howsoever. 3. A declaration that the purported termination of the claimant’s employment by the defendants without affording the claimant the opportunity to be heard is unconstitutional, illegal, null and void and of no effect whosoever. 4. A declaration that the termination of the claimant’s employment is in breach or violation of the claimant’s contract of employment as manifested by the conditions of service and the enabling statute creating or establishing the defendants. 5. A declaration that the three queries issued to the claimant in the cause of the strike due to his union activities is wrongful, illegal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever or howsoever. 6. An order of court reinstating the claimant back to the employment. 7. An order of court quashing the three queries issued to the claimant in the cause of the strike due to the claimant’s union activities. 8. An order of court compelling the defendants to pay to the claimant all his outstanding salary arrears and other emoluments which the defendants had illegally stopped for no reason whatsoever or howsoever. 9. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the claimant’s duties in the polytechnic. Accompanying the complaint is the statement of facts, list of witnesses and list of documents. The defendants entered appearance on the 7th of January 2010 and filed their statement of defence, list of witnesses and list of documents on the 26th January 2010. The parties then joined issues. The case of the claimant on the pleadings is that he is an employee of the defendants and the Chairman of the Academic Staff Union of Polytechnics, the Polytechnic Ibadan chapter. That he was employed by the defendants pursuant to the enabling law establishing the second defendant and holds the position of Assistant Chief Technical Instructor with the second defendant. The claimant averred that sometime in July 2009, the three existing unions within the Polytechnic Ibadan specifically the academic staff union, the non-academic staff union and the senior staff association at their congresses resolved to embark upon an industrial action to protest the deductions from salaries of their members and non-implementation of various welfare packages. The claimant pleaded that before embarking on the industrial action the various unions served adequate notice on the defendants and the Oyo State Government of their intention if their demands are not met. The claimant averred that the defendants and Oyo State Government refused to accede to the demands of the unions which led to the unions embarking on an indefinite industrial action to press home their demands. That the strike action was embarked upon by all the unions in the state tertiary institutions. The claimant pleaded that during the strike action, the defendants issued three queries to him within a period of one month to which he responded. He averred that the queries were aimed at witch-hunting and victimizing him as the leader of the union so as to break the resolve and the unity of the striking workers. The claimant pleaded that in an effort to disorganize the union, the defendants terminated his appointment by a letter dated 25th September 2009. That this was a direct clampdown by the Oyo State Government on the unions due to the industrial action embarked upon by the unions. He averred that since his employment was terminated, he has not been paid his salary and other emoluments. The claimant pleaded that the decision by the various unions to embark on an industrial action was a collective one taken by the entire members of the various unions within the second defendant and that he was not the only member of staff who participated in the strike action. The claimant pleaded that he was not given any opportunity to defend himself. He also pleaded the role he played in the course of carrying out the union directives before his appointment was terminated by the defendants. He averred that he did not appear before any disciplinary panel set up by the defendants. That he has written several letters to the defendants demanding re-instatement which they have refused to do. The claimant pleaded that his contract of employment with the defendants subsists till he attains the age of retirement which he has not attained. He pleaded that the defendants are in breach of the terms and conditions of employment entered into with him and that he has suffered untold hardship and psychological trauma as a result of the termination of his employment. The claimant testified as the only witness in support of his claims. His oral testimony was in the exact terms of his case on the pleadings. In addition, he testified that he joined the services of the second defendant in May 1996 and was given a letter of appointment. That he was never queried by the defendants until July 2009 when the industrial action commenced and he alone was singled out and queried. The claimant relied on all the documents frontloaded by him which were not challenged by the defendants and admitted at the trial. The claimant was cross-examined by learned counsel to the defendants. He testified that he received a letter of termination from the defendants and handed over the defendants’ properties in his possession to the Head of his Department. He denied that he was still holding on to some students’ answer scripts and other properties belonging to the defendants. He said he had something to show that he had handed over the defendants’ properties. He stated that during the strike action, there were several meetings between the defendants and the unions. In re-examination, the claimant stated that he handed over answer scripts of students he taught and their results to his departmental head. After the re-examination the claimant closed his case. The case of the defendants on the pleadings is that the claimant was offered appointment on May 17, 1996 and had been promoted over the years. His last promotion was in 2008 to the position of Assistant Chief Technical Instructor.The defendants pleaded that the 1st defendant terminated the claimant’s employment on 25th September 2009.The defendants denied receipt of any notice of strike action to protest deductions of salaries of its workforce. They averred that the union approached the Rector of the 2nd defendant for a meeting and a date wasfixed for all the parties to meet and discuss their grievances but that the union never responded. The defendants pleaded that it is their normal practice to issue queries to caution erring staff whose actions or inactions are detrimental to the progress of the Polytechnic and that the queries issued to the claimant were in line with the defendants’ policy of maintaining discipline among its staff. The defendants pleaded that the appointment of the claimant and some other members of staff were terminated as a result of the re-organization and restructuring going on within the 2nd defendant and not as a result of victimization of the claimant as a union leader. They averred that the claimant’s termination was not due to any misconduct or misdemeanor and as such there was no need to give him notice of any hearing. The defendants averred that the employee/employer relationship with the claimant is as contained in his letter of employment and subsequent letters of promotion. The defendants averred that since September 2009 when the claimant’s appointment was terminated, he locked up his office, went away with the keys and refused to handover to the Head of his Department properties belonging to the second defendant. That the claimant’s letter of termination instructed the Bursary department to compute his entitlements only after he has handed over the properties of the second defendant to his Head of Department or an appointed representative. The defendants also averred that the claimant is still withholding some answer scripts of students.The defendants further pleaded that it is not their policy to disregard the union and that there are other union members in the employment of the 2nd defendant who work without any form of harassment or victimization on account of their union activities. The defendants also pleaded that between August and September 2009, the unions and the first defendant had several meetings to deliberate on the demands of the union with a view to ending the strike action. The defendants called one witness Mr. Okelola Augustine Owoyemi, the Principal Assistant Registrar in the Registry responsible for academic staff establishment. He testified that he knows the claimant and that he was the Chairman, Academic Staff Union of Polytechnics, The Polytechnic Ibadan. The rest of his testimony is in terms of the pleadings. The witness was cross-examined.He admitted that the claimant had never been queried since he was employed. He testified that the claimant during the course of the strike action was given three queries which were in respect of the claimant’s union activities in order to caution him. He informed the court that the reason given for the claimant’s appointment being terminated was restructuring and that the claimant is the only one he knows whose appointment was terminated as a result of restructuring.The defence witness further testified that he could not say whether before the restructuring there was any pronouncement by the first defendant to that effect and that he did not know if the first defendant had any meeting in respect ofthe restructuring. He stated that he was not aware of any indictment of the claimant before the termination. The witness admitted that the claimant has not been paid any salary since his appointment was terminated. There was no re-examination of this witness and the defence closed its case. On the next adjourned date, the defendants brought an application seeking leave to re-open their defence by calling an additional witness and praying for an order vacating the order directing parties to file final written addresses. In a considered ruling delivered on the 5th April 2011, the court dismissed this application and the parties subsequently adopted their written addresses. Learned counsel to the defendants raised one issue for determination as follows: Whether in view of the circumstances of the case the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in his statement of facts? She submitted that for the claimant to succeed, he must prove the following: (i) That he is an employee of the defendants. (ii) The terms and conditions of his employment. (iii) His letter of termination of employment is in breach of his contract of employment and the enabling statute creating the defendants. (iv) His termination is as a result of his trade union activities. (v) The queries issued to him were unconstitutional, null and void; and (vi) The claimant’s employment is one with statutory flavor. The defendants’ counsel submitted that the claimant’s letter of employment dated 17th May 1996 is the document creating the master and servant relationship between the parties. That other conditions for terminating appointments as well as general conditions of service are contained in the senior staff handbook. She further submitted that there are three categories of employment contracts which are as follows: those regarded as purely master/servant; where a servant is said to hold office at the pleasure of the employer and where the employment is regulated or governed by statute, referring to CBN v. Igwillo [2007] 23 WRN 1 at 20. Learned counsel further submitted that an employment is said to have statutory flavor when it is protected by statute or laid down regulations made to govern the procedure for employment and discipline of an employee. That any other employment outside this category is governed by the terms under which the parties agreed to be master and servant, referring to Olaniyan v. University of Lagos [2004] 15 WRN 44. She also submitted that the onus is on the claimant to prove the terms of the contract of employment that was allegedly breached and then went on to argue that the claimant has failed to do. She referred to section 3.17 of the senior staff handbook and stated that it makes provision for four different ways of terminating the appointment of a staff which are as follows: in accordance with the terms of the contract,or for a good cause, or on the grounds of ill-health, or absence from duty. That the appropriate one in the instant case is section 3.17(1) which provides that “The Governing Council may terminate any appointment in accordance with the terms of the contract of service”. She submitted that by the defendants’ letter of termination to the claimant and the contents therein, the defendants satisfied the terms of the contract of employment as stipulated in the claimant’s letter of appointment. Learned counsel to the defendants submitted that the claimant has not led any credible and cogent evidence to support his allegations that his appointment was terminated based on his union activities. That from the documentary evidence before the court, the claimant’s employment was terminated due to restructuring and re-organization as stated in the letter of termination. Arguing further she submitted that it is trite law that a master is under no obligation to give any reason for the termination of the employment of its staff and that the master can terminate the contract any time for any reason or for no reason at all, citing Olanrewaju v. Afribank (Nig.) Plc. [2001] 31 WRN 41, Shuaibu v. UBN Plc. [1995] 4 NWLR (Pt. 388) 173. The defendants’ counsel stated that there were deliberations in respect of the industrial action by the defendants and various moves to ensure that the strike was called off and striking staff resume duty by the 18th September 2009. That measures were put in place to ensure that all workers resumed work unfailingly by that date and adamant workers sanctioned appropriately which included issuance of queries. She referred to document 3 on the defendants’ list of documents which are the minutes of the emergency meeting of the 1st defendant held on 17th September 2009 and submitted that the defendants have the discretion to reprimand staff in the event that they are found wanting in their duties or engaging in activities not in the interest of the defendants. Counsel then went on to submit that the queries issued to the claimant are not all in respect of his union activities. That they are mainly on his utterance and abandonment of official duty after the strike had ended and therefore his allegations that the three queries issued against him are wrongful is unsustainable and unsubstantiated. The defendants’ counsel contended that the claimant’s appointment is not specifically provided for by statute or regulations made thereunder. That the claimant’s claim for reinstatement must fail as courts will not grant specific performance of contracts of service, or impose a servant on an employer except it is an employment with statutory flavor, referring to Dr. Oloruntoba-Oju & ors v. Prof. Raheem [2009] 6 MJSC 48, Olaniyan v. University of Lagos[1985] 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 599, Eperokun v. University of Lagos [1986] 4 NWLR (Pt. 34) 162, Bamgboye v. University of Ilorin [1999] 10 NWLR (Pt. 622) 290, University of Maiduguri Teaching Hospital Board v. Dawa [2007] 16 NWLR (Pt. 739) 424, Shitta Bey v. Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC)[1981] 1 SC 41 andUNTHMB v. Nnobi [1994] 8 NWLR (Pt. 363) 376. She submitted that the claimant’s contract of service is purely one of master/servant.That the evidence of the defendants shows that the claimant has failed to handover the defendants’ properties as directed in the letter of termination and that is why he has not been paid his entitlements. Counsel to the defendants also submitted that the claimant is only entitled to what he would have earned throughout the period required to lawfully terminate his employment. That his entitlement should not exceed his salary, perquisite of office and the period of notice referring to SPDC (Nig.) Ltd v. Tiebo VII [1996] 4 NWLR (Pt. 445) 657.She finally submitted that from the totality of this case, the claimant is not entitled to the reliefs sought in his statement of facts and urged the court to discountenance the claimant’s claim and dismiss it for being frivolous and lacking in merit. Learned counsel to the claimant in reply raised three issues for determination as follows: 1. Whether the claimant’s appointment is one with statutory flavor. 2. Whether in view of the provisions of section 24 of The Polytechnic Ibadan Law 1970 and the amendments thereto, the termination of the claimant’s appointment is not illegal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever as the defendant did not comply with the Polytechnic Ibadan Edict 1970 which is the enabling statute. 3. If issues one and two are resolved in favour of the claimant, whether the claimant is entitled to all the reliefs sought in the general form of complaint. On issue 1, the claimant’s counsel submitted that the second defendant is a creation of statute. That it was established by The Polytechnic Ibadan Edict 1970 now The Polytechnic Ibadan Law. That sections 19 and 24 of the law states in clear terms the procedure for appointment and removal of academic staff of which the claimant is one. He reproduced section 19 of the law as follows: “(1) Recommendations for the creation of academic post other than those mentioned in PART IV of this Edict shall be made by the board of studies to the governing board and the filling of vacancies in such posts shall be the responsibility of the governing board. (2) For the purpose of filling such a vacancy there shall be a selection board which shall interview prospective candidates and make recommendations to the governing board as to the filling of such vacancy. (3) Subject to sub-section (4) of this section, the selection board shall consist of: (a) the Rector who shall be the chairman of the selection board; (b) two members of the governing board who shall be appointed by the governing board; (c)four members of the board of studies who shall be appointed by the board of studies. (d) such experts not exceeding two in number as the board of studies shall from time to time appoint “All appointments to senior library posts shall be made in the same way as equivalent appointments in the academic staff and for all such posts, other than that of the Librarian shall be member of the selection board.” Learned counsel then submitted that by this provision the claimant’s appointment is clothed with statutory flavour and that a master has a duty to pay attention to the legal status of a servant under a contract of employment with statutory flavor, citing Olaniyan v. University of Lagos [2004] 15 WRN 44 at 80. He further submitted that the claimant’s letter of appointment as well as the staff handbook were issued and made pursuant to The Polytechnic Ibadan Law. Counsel argued that any provision of the staff handbook and theletter of employment which are contrary to the statute establishing the defendants is null and void.He stated that the claimant’s appointment was made pursuant to section 19 and that the procedure for the removal of the claimant is stated in section 24 of The Polytechnic Ibadan Edict. He then submitted that on the authorities of Olaniyan v. University of Lagos(supra) andShitta-Bey v. FPSC[1981] 1 SC 40 and the relevant provisions of The Polytechnic Ibadan Law 1970 together with the amendments thereto the claimant’s appointment is one with statutory flavor. The claimant’s counsel then went on to submit further that all the authorities relied on by the defendants’ counsel further strengthen the claimant’s case that his employment is one with statutory flavour and he urged the court to resolve this issue in favour of the claimant. On issue 2, learned counsel submitted that the procedure for termination of a statutory employee is as spelt out in the statute creating such employment and any deviation from same renders the termination null and void andof no effect, referring to Olaniyan v.University of Lagos(supra).He stated that the relevant provision of The Polytechnic Ibadan Law is section 24(1) which he reproduced as follows: “If it appears to the governing board that there are reasons for believing that the rector, a deputy rector, the registrar or any other person employed as a member of the academic staff of the polytechnic should be removed from his office or employment on the ground of misconduct or inability to perform the functions of his office, the governing board shall – (a) give notice of those reasons to the person in question. (b) where the matter relates to the principal, a deputy principal, the secretary or head of department, set up a committee from among the members of the governing board; (c) where the matter relates to any other member of the academic or administrative staff, direct the principal to set up a committee to investigate the matter and report to the governing board but so however that where the matter relates to any other member of the academic staff part of the members of the committee shall be appointed from among the members of the board. (d) make reasonable arrangements for the person in question accompanied by arepresentative if he so desires, to be afforded an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by the investigating committee with respect to the matter; and if the governing board after considering the report of the investigating committee is satisfied that the person in question should be removed as aforesaid, the governing board may so remove him by an instrument in writing by the chairman of the governing board on the direction of that board.” Learned counsel argued that the defendants did not set up an investigation committee in line with the provisions of section 24(1) and the amendments thereto neither did they give the claimant the opportunity of appearing before a committee in the contemplation of the above provision before terminating the claimant’s appointment. He submitted that where a master-servant relationship is predicated on a statute or specific regulations which clearly stipulate the procedure for the termination of a servant’s appointment, it is mandatory for the master to follow the statutory provisions or regulations strictly. He referred to Obafemi Awolowo University v. Dr. Kola Onabanjo [1991] 5 NWLR (Pt. 193) 549 at 570 and submitted that the failure of the defendants to comply with the provisions of section 24(1)(d) amounts to a breach of the claimant’s right to fair hearing as guaranteed by section 36 of the 1999 constitution. The claimant’s counsel further submitted that where the regulations/statute regulating the relationship of master and servant stipulates that the servant must be informed of any allegation or complaint that may justify his removal, and he is not so informed before being removed this will amount to a denial of fair hearing, citing Obafemi Awolowo University v.Onabanjo(supra). Counsel went on to argue that the defendants being public bodies created by The Polytechnic Ibadan Law, they cannot do anything which is contrary or inconsistent with the powers and duties conferred on it such as terminating the appointment of the claimant contrary to section 24 of the law.He argued that the three queries issued the claimant within one month is evidence of victimization of the claimant who was chairman of the Academic Staff Union of Polytechnic while carrying out his union activities. The claimant also argued that there was no credible evidence before the court that the defendants terminated the claimant’s appointment due to restructuring and re-organization. He contended that the defendants did not adduce any evidence of any meeting held by the 1st defendant wherein the decision to restructure and re-organize was reached. He argued that he who asserts must prove, citing Ugbo v. Aburime [1994] 9 SCNJ 23 andOsawaru v. Ezerika [1978] 6 – 7 SC 135 and submitted that failure of the defendants to lead credible evidence of the alleged re-organization is fatal to their case. He also referred to section 139 of the Evidence Act (year not stated), Odukwe v. Ogunbiyi [1998] 8 NWLR (Pt. 561) 323 at 352 andArase v. Arase [1981] 5 SC 33.Learned counsel contended that the defendants’ argument that they can terminate the claimant’s employment based on the stipulation in the claimant’s letter of appointment giving the requiredlength of notice as contained in section 3:17 of the staff handbook is at variance with section 24 and therefore they are both null and void on the authority of Olaniyan v. University of Lagos(supra). On issue 3,the claimant’s counsel argued that the court can make an inference from the preponderance of evidence before it and the entire circumstances of the case that the claimant’s appointment was terminated based on his union activities, citing Trans International Bank Plc v. National Union of Banks, Insurance and Financial Employees (NUBIFE)unreported Suit No. NIC/17/2000 decided on May 3, 2007. He submitted that the termination of the claimant’s employment as a result of his trade union activities amounts to a gross violation of his right to freedom of association guaranteed by section 40 of the 1999 Constitution and that the court has a duty to protect the claimant’s right to freedom of association by declaring the termination illegal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever. On the relief of re-instatement sought by the claimant, counsel referred to the cases of Mix and Bake Flour Mill Industries v. National Union Of Food,Beverage and Tobacco Employees (NUFBTE) [2004] 1NLLR (Pt. 2) 247 at 275 – 277 and NUFBTE v. Cocoa Industries Ltd Ikeja [2005] 3NWLR (Pt. 6) 206 at 218 and submitted that on the authority of these two cases, the court can order re-instatement of the claimantashisemployment is one with statutory flavor and the termination of his employment was as a result of his trade union activities which section 9(6) of the Labour Act Cap L1 LFN 2004 and section 42(1)(b) of the Trade Disputes Act Cap 437 LFN 1990 frown at. He finally submitted that the claimant is entitled to all his arrears of salary and other benefits as his purported termination is illegal, null and void having contravened section 24(1) of The Polytechnic Ibadan Edict 1970 and the amendments thereto. He urged the court to grant the claims of the claimant. The defendants did not react on points of law. Having carefully considered the pleadings, evidence and submissions of counsel, the issues to be determined for the purposes of this judgment are as follows: 1. Whether or not the claimant’s employment is one protected by statute. 2. Whether or not the claimant’s termination of employment was on account of his trade union activities as Chairman, Academic Staff Union of Polytechnics, The Polytechnic Ibadan chapter. 3. Whether the termination of the claimant’s appointment was wrongful. There is no dispute that the claimant was employed as an academic staff by the second defendant. The defendants have conducted their defense on the footing of a pure master and servant relationship under common law while the claimant has conducted his case as an employment protected by statute. The first question to be answered is whether the second defendant is a creature of statute. The second defendant was established by The Polytechnic Ibadan Edict (No. 15) of 1970. The preamble is as follows: ‘An Edict to Provide ForThe Establishment, Incorporation, Constitution and Functions Of The Polytechnic, Ibadan and For Other Matters Incidental Thereto Or Connected Therewith’. Section 3 provides as follows: There shall be established, as the successor of the Technical College, Ibadan, which shall cease to be in being from the date of commencement of this Edict, a Polytechnic styled The Polytechnic, Ibadan, which shall be constituted as provided in section 4 of this Edict. Section 8 provides for the establishment of the Governing Board; section 19 makes provision for appointments to academic posts while section 24 provides the procedure for the removal of academic and administrative staff. These two provisions have been earlier reproduced above by the claimant and so there is no need to reproduce them again. The regulations governing the appointment and removal of the claimant from office derive from The Polytechnic Ibadan Edict 1970 and the amendments thereto. We find that the second defendant is a creation of statute and therefore hold that the claimant’s employment is not a master and servant relationship under the common law but an employment held under the provisions of The Polytechnic Ibadan Edict 1970. Put another way, the employment relationship of the parties is one of master and servant with a statutory flavor. See Olaniyan & ors v. University of Lagos [1985]2NWLR (Pt. 9) 599 andEperokun v. University of Lagos [1986] 4NWLR (Pt. 34) 162. Regarding the claimant’s allegation that his termination was as a result of his trade union activities, evidence was led by both parties that the Academic Staff Union of Ibadan Polytechnic of which the claimant is chairman, together with other trade unions within the second defendant had embarked on a strike action. Evidence was led to show that the claimant was issued three queries during the period of the strike on the following days: 10th July 2009, 11th September 2009 and the 23rd September 2009. On 25th September 2009, his appointment was terminated. The defense witness who is the Principal Assistant Registrar (Academic Staff Establishment) during cross-examination admitted that the claimant had never been issued with a query prior to the strike action and that the three queries issued to him were in relation to his trade union activities in a bid to caution him. He also testified that the claimant was the only one whose appointment was terminated as a result of restructuring. He said he could not say if the defendants had any meeting on restructuring or made any pronouncement to that effect. He also admitted that there was no record of any indictment against the claimant before his termination. From the totality of the evidence adduced by the parties, we find that the three queries were issued to the claimant during the course of the strike because of his trade union activities with the aim of harassing him. We hold that the queries are wrongful, null and void and of no effect whatsoever and that the claimant’s employment was terminated as a result of his trade union activities contrary to combined effect of section 9(6)(b)(i) of the Labour Act Cap L1 LFN 2004 and section 43(1)(b) of the Trade Disputes Act 2004. Having earlier held that the claimant’s employment is one with statutory flavor, it must be determined in the way and manner prescribed by section 24 of the Polytechnic Ibadan Edict. The claimant has complained that he was not given an opportunity to defend himself before any disciplinary panel. Section 24(1)(a-d) provides that the governing board shall notify the person in question of the reasons he should be removed from his office or employment, direct the Rector to set up a committee to investigate the matter and to report on it to the governing board, make reasonable arrangement for the person to be accompanied by a representative if he so desires and be afforded an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by the investigating committee with respect to the matter. None of these steps was complied with by the defendants. The claimant was simply issued with three queries which he responded to and then his employment was terminated. We find the manner of termination inconsistent with the procedures stipulated for removal in section 24 of the Edict and therefore hold that the purported termination is null and void and of no effect. The legal position of the parties and their relationship is that which existed before the purported letter of termination dated 25th September 2009 was issued. The claimant, therefore, is still in service. See Iderima v. Rivers State Civil Service Commission [2005] 16 NWLR (Pt. 951), Eperokun & ors v. University of Lagos(supra) andShitta-Bey v. FPSC[1981] 1 SC 40. Having also held that the claimant’s appointment was terminated as a result of his trade union activities, re-instatement is ordered on this ground as well. This court, in the case of NUFBTE v. Cocoa Industries Limited Ikeja [2005] 3NWLR (Pt. 8) 206 at 218, held inter alia that as a matter of principle, there are two main instances where the courts generally order re-instatement. The first instance is where employment is statutory and the statutory process for disengagement is not followed and the second leg is where a worker is disengaged for embarking on trade union activities. See alsoManagement of Dangote Industries Ltd, Pasta Plant Ebute Ikorodu v. NUFBTE unreported Suit No. NIC/2/2008 delivered on 28th January 2009, The Management of Nestle Nigeria Plc. Ilupeju Lagos v. NUFBTE unreported Suit No. NIC/25/2008 delivered on April 2009, Chemical and Non-Metallic Products Senior Staff Association v. Benue Cement Co. Plc.[2005] 2NLLR (Pt. 6) 446 andHotel and Personal Services Senior Staff Association v. Owena Hotels Ltd, Akure [2005] 3 NLLR (Pt. 7)163. Following from all of the above, we hold that the defendants having failed to comply with the provisions of The Polytechnic Ibadan Edict 1970 and the Labour Act Cap L1 LFN 2004, the letter of termination ADM/PC.2730/89 dated 25th September 2009 issued to the claimant is ultra vires, null and void and of no effect whatsoever. The claimant is accordingly restored to his position as Assistant Chief Technical Instructor in the second defendant, The Polytechnic Ibadan, immediately and he is entitled to all the rights and privileges attached thereto. The defendants shall pay to the claimant all his outstanding salary arrears and other emoluments due to him within 14 days from today. Judgment is entered accordingly. The defendants shall pay cost of N50,000.00 to the claimant. …………………………… Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip Presiding Judge