Download PDF
The Claimants caused a complaint to be filed against the defendant claiming the following reliefs -- 1. The Claimants claim a declaration that the Claimants are entitled to the salaries and gratuity hereunder claimed respectively. 2. The total of (N3,206,537.59) been the sum claimed by the 1st Claimant 3. The total of (N1, 261,331.68) been the sum claimed by the 2nd Claimant. 4. N1000,000 been the cost of this action and solicitors fee. Accompanying the complaint are the Claimants statement of claim(facts), list of witnesses, 1st and 2nd Claimants written statement on oath, list of documents and documents to be relied upon by both claimants and the frontloaded documents admitted and marked as Exhibits B1, B2,B3, B4, B5,( Agreement reached between the Maritime workers Union and Management of the defendant) D1, D2 and D4. The Defendant on its own part filed a memorandum of appearance, statement of Defence, list of witness, sworn deposition of Defence witness, list of documents to be relied on and the frontloaded documents. The Claimants filed additional document to the list of document. At the trial, both the 1st and 2nd Claimants testified for themselves as CW1 and CW2 respectively, while Mrs Sola Omorodion, the Head of quality control/Acting Manager in the defendant's company testified for the Defendant as DW. The case of the Claimants put shortly as can be distilled from the statement of facts, the sworn depositions of both Claimants and their oral testimonies as CW1 and CW 2 respectively, is that on the 3rd of Sept. 1987, the 1st Claimant was employed by the defendant as a checker, he thereafter became a permanent and pensionable staff and was promoted to the post of Bag Store Supervisor in 2003 as indicated on his letter of employment and promotion letters admitted and marked as exhibits B1- B4 and on a monthly salary of N26,811.28 until May, 2007 when the defendant asked him to stay at home for three months to enable the company carry out internal reorganization and had since heard nothing from the defendant and was not issued a termination letter which has resulted to a lot of hardship for him. To the 1st Claimant his gratuity for working for 25 years in the defendant's company as per the company's handbook is N1,675,705.00. ( The purported handbook is not before the Court) It was the case of the 2nd Claimant that he was employed by the defendant on 1st Oct. 1996 as a Clerk vide exhibit D, he was placed on a probation for one year after which his appointment was confirmed vide exhibit D1, whereby he became a permanent and pensionable staff and was promoted to the position of Clerk Grade 11 with a salary increment, this is evident in exhibits D2 and D3 respectively. He was also asked by the defendant to stay at home since June 2007, has not been called back since then and his appointment has not been terminated and he had suffered untold hardship as a result of the stay at home order of the defendant. To the 2nd Claimant his arrears of salary since June 2007 till August 2012 is N825,300.00 and that his gratuity should be N436,031.68. Both Claimants stated that they wrote a letter to the Defendant to demand for their gratuity but the company failed to reply. Although the alleged letter is not before the Court. It is the case of the 1st Claimant under cross examination that, at the time the defendant urged him to stay at home the business of production and marketing of the defendant was still ongoing. He was a member of the maritime workers union. He confirmed that he has not tendered his resignation letter and the defendant has not terminated his employment. He admitted that gratuity is only paid to a retiree. He has not resumed to work because he has not been called back to work and would not know if the defendant is still in business. The 2nd Claimant in his cross examination stated that he worked for the defendant for 17 years and rose to the position of Acting Supervisor in the marine department where his duties involves discharging vessels of consignment and cleaning of the factory. The defendant was no longer producing in Lagos, but rather sold industrial salt both in Lagos and in Port Harcourt. He is a member of the workers union. He also confirmed that his appointment has not been terminated and he has not tendered his resignation letter. He also affirmed that gratuity is only paid to retirees. He was at the defendant's office when the Managing Director invited them, he went to work, but was not given any work to do. To the 2nd Claimant gratuity in the defendant's company is calculated by multiplying a month salary by two for 16 years. He stated that he and the 1st Claimant work at the same company which is the defendant's and the condition of service applies to all the staff of the defendant. It is the defence case on the other hand that the Claimants are part of their employees who agreed to stay at home to enable the defendant reorganise and resume production. It was confirmed that the 1st Claimant was employed by the defendant vide a letter of employment dated 3rd Sept 1987 and his appointment was confirmed on 1st June, 1988. It was the case of the defendant as regards the 2nd Claimant that he was employed on 1st Oct, 1996 and his employment was confirmed on 2nd Feb, 1997. The defendant denied that the salary of the 1st Claimant was increased to N24,811.28, rather he was paid the sum of N19,748.68, while the 2nd Claimant's salary was increased to N12,331.32 when the Defendant was in active production. Both Claimants employment were made subject to the condition of service of the Defendant's Company. It was the further case of the defendant that sometimes in 2006, the Defendant suffered from the global economic crises and thus the operation of the Defendant was grounded. The management of the Defendant eventually in 2007, met with the members of staff including the Claimants and reached a mutual agreement that some members of staff( 73) of them including the Claimants should stay at home to enable the defendant to re organise itself. According to the Defendant, it was agreed that the members of staff who would stay at home would be re- absorbed when the Defendant began operation, but up till this moment the defendant has not been able to re organise itself and resume production. It was the case of the Defendant that the employment of the Claimants have not been terminated and they would be recalled when the defendant resumes production. To the Defendant there is no dispute between it and the Claimants as to vest this Court with jurisdiction to entertain this matter. The Defendant contended that the Claimants are not entitled to any salary arrears as the period between 2007 and 2012, the Claimants were no longer working and the defendant had stopped production. The defence witness stated under cross examination that she was employed by the company in 1987 as a Chemical analyst, but now the Head of Quality, Admin and Personnel. She is no longer carrying out the duty of quality analyst because the defendant is no longer producing salt. She affirmed that she and 25 other staff are retained in both the Lagos and Port Harcourt offices. It was also stated that the salaries and gratuities of the workers have been calculated in accordance with the union agreement i.e. Exhibit B5, but quick to add that the Claimants employments have not been terminated. she confirmed that the defendant cannot pay the Claimants now because it cannot meet its obligations. The defence through its counsel filed a final written address on the 26th of Nov, 2013, wherein three issues were raised for the determination of the Court viz- 1. Whether in the absence of any dispute or controversy between the Claimants and the Defendant the Honourable Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit? 2. Whether the Claimants who are still employees of the Defendant are entitled to gratuity? 3. Whether in the circumstance of the mutual agreement reached between the Claimants and the Defendant, the Claimants are entitled to any arrears of salary, for the period between 2007 and 2012. which neither the Claimants worked or the Defendant produced goods? It was the submission of learned defence counsel on issue one that dispute is defined by Black's Law Dictionary 5th Edition at Page 424 as '' A conflict or controversy; a conflict of claim of rights; an assertion of a right, or demand on one side, met by contrary claims or allegation on the other'' According to counsel dispute is also liken to controversy, quarrel, argument, disagreement and contention. To the Defendant there is no dispute as regards the fact that both parties agreed that the Claimants should stay at home to enable the defendant re organise and resume production. It was the further submission of learned defence counsel that there was no breach of the said agreement. The agreement is to the effect that the Claimants amongst the 71 other members of staff, stay at home to enable the Defendant re organise and resume production; and that upon resumption of production by the Defendant Company all such staff who stayed at home would be recalled to work and salaries would be paid for their services. according to the defence, the Claimant did not refute or contradict the fact averred in paragraph 10 of the Statement of defence to the effect that the defendant has not resume production and same was confirmed by the 2nd Claimant when he confirmed under cross examination that the Defendant haven't resumed production. To the Defendant the Claimants failure to challenge paragraph 10 of the statement of Defence means that the Claimants have admitted same and the defendant is not oblige to adduce any further evidence in proof of same. Reliance was placed on the case of A.G.ABIA STATE V A.G. FEDERATION[2005] 37 WRN. 1 @ 67-68. PARAS 45-5. where the Supreme Court held per Ejiwunmi JSC thus- ''Having regard to the several complaints of the Plaintiff, one would have expected the Plaintiff to file a reply to this averment so that the defence proffered by the 1st defendant would at the very least, be put in doubt. This the Plaintiff did not do. Then the legal effect of such a failure surely is recognised as an admission of those facts pleaded by the 1st Defendant.'' It was then submitted that the Claimants are still employees of the defendant company and would be recalled as soon as they resume production. Paragraph 11 of the statement of defence refers and went on to state that it would have been a different case if the defendant had purportedly terminated the agreement between the parties, if it had resumed production and had refused to recall the Claimants and if it had resumed production and had refused to pay the Claimants salaries and other entitlements which had accrued and the defendant had refused to pay same. On what constitutes a cause of action, the Court was referred to the case of ANUKWU V EZE [2012] 11 NWLR (PT1310) 50 @ 68, where the Court of Appeal held- ''A lis or cause of action is constituted by a bundle of facts which the law will recognise as giving the Plaintiff a right of action. It is a situation or state of facts which would entitle a party to sustain action and give him right to seek judicial remedy or redress. It consists of every fact that would be necessary for the Plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to judgment of the Court. In order words, a cause of action means a bundle or aggregate of facts which the law will recognise as giving the Plaintiff substantive right to make the claim for the relief or remedy sought. Such facts or combination of facts, which give rise to a right to sue may consist of two elements. viz: a. The wrongful act of the Defendant which gives the Plaintiff his cause of action; and b. The consequential damage". The Court was also referred to the case of OWODUNNI v. REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF CELESTIAL CHURCH OF CHRIST [2000] 10 NWLR (Pt. 675) 315 at P. 365 paragraphs F - H. It was the further contention of the defendant that the Claimants have failed to put before this court sustainable fact as to give them the right to seek redress from this Court. To the defendants the Claimant have failed to put before this Court any wrongful act done by the Defendant. Learned Defence Counsel thus, urged the Court to hold that the Claimants have failed to establish the cause of action again the Defendant in this suit. To the Defendant, the law is settled that where no cause of action has been disclosed in the statement of claim, the effect is that the Court is dispossessed of the jurisdiction to entertain and determine the suit. Cited in support of this assertion is the case of OMIN III v. GOVERNOR OF CROSS RIVER STATE [2007] 41 WRN Pg. 158 at 156. Counsel posited that the proper order to make in the circumstance is to strike out the claim. It was the contention of the Defendant on issue two that the uncontroverted Paragraphs 11 of the statement of Defence wherein the Defendant averred that the Claimants appointment with the Defendant have not be terminated and that the Claimants would be recalled when the defendant begin production which was also confirmed to the Court by both Claimants . The first and second Claimants affirmed under cross examination that gratuity is only paid to a person who is retired or have been disengaged or resigned. To the defendant this facts are deemed admitted by the claimant a. That their appointments have not been terminated by the Defendant Company. b. That they have not resigned their appointments either, and; c. They are accordingly not entitled to gratuity as gratuity is only payable to a person who is retired or have been disengaged or resigned. Section 123 of the Evidence Act [2011] and the case of UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN V. ADESINA [2010] WLR Pt. 1199 Pg. 331 at 401, item 32 of the agreement between the marital workers of Nigeria and Management Union Dicon Salt Plc on the staff condition of service and urge the court to hold that the Claimants have admitted that they are not entitle to gratuity and else no other proof is needed. It was the argument of the Defendant that the Claimants who have neither retired nor resigned their appointment are not entitle to gratuity. Cited in support is the case of PEUGEOT AUTOMOBNILE NIGERIA LIMITED V. SALIU OJE & 3 ORS. [1997] II NWLR (Pt. 530) Pg. 635 Paragraphs H - A and urge the court to hold that payment of gratuity as per the Agreement reached on the staff condition of service, i.e. Exhibit B5 can only apply to situation where an employee of the Defendant had his appointment determined either by retirement/resignation. With regard to issue 3, Learned Defence Counsel reproduced Paragraphs 6 - 9 of the statement as thus: ''6. That by reason of the matters stated in paragraph 5 above, the Claimants and some other staff of the Defendant were totally idle as they resumed in the Defendant's office and closed in the evening without doing anything as the Defendant had stopped production. 7. The Defendant avers that sometime in 2007, the management of the Defendant met with the members of staff including the Claimants herein agreed stay home to enable the Defendant to re-organise itself and resume production 8. Further to paragraph 7 above, about 73 members of staff including the Claimants accepted to stay at home until the Defendant resumes operations. 9. The Defendant states that a fundamental part of the agreement reached with the staff was that those who would stay at home would be re- absorbed when the Defendant began operations shortly then". And referred the court to oral testimony of both Claimants that they have not performed any duty at defendant's company since 2007 when they agree to stay at home. It was the position of the defendant that the management had the option of either laying off the employee under the redundancy provision of the staff condition of service or reach a compromise with the affected staff to stay at home pending the time the company reorganises and resumes production. The Defendant chose the latter option, which is by reaching mutual agreement with the affected staff including the Claimants to stay at home. The affected staff were all fully paid salaries and allowances up to date they last reported to duty. It was not part of the argument reached by the defendant and the affected staff including the Claimant that they would be paid salary while staying at home. It was the final contention of the defendant that the Claimants are bound by the terms of the agreement which they have voluntary entered with the Defendant. Reliance was placed on these case law authorities. SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED V. ALLAPUTA [2005] 9 NWLR (PT 931) 473 at P 516 paragraph H, OMEGA BANK NIG PLC V. OBC LTD [2002] 16 NWLR (Pt. 794) 483 at P. 511, paras D - E and the case of OSHEVIRE LTD V. TNPOLI MOTORS [1997] 5 NWLR (Pt. 503) 1 at P. 18. The defendant urged the Court to hold that the Claimants are not entitle to any arrears of salary for the period between 2007 and 2012 which they neither worked nor the defendant produced any goods. The learned Claimants counsel equally filed a final written address in response to the Defendant's written address wherein a sole issue was raised for the Court's determination- Whether the Claimants are entitled to the reliefs sought in the circumstances. It was the submission of counsel that the law is settled that a fact or allegation not denied is deemed admitted. The cases of OYENIYI V ADEKE [2009] ALL FWLR PT. 467, P 1922; AND OMOJUYIGBE V NIPOST [2010]ALL FWLR. PT.543 were commended to the Court. It was the contention of the learned counsel that the Defendant has failed to deny the fact that the Claimants have not been paid their salaries and gratuities after several demand have been made in that regard. Whilst placing reliance on the case of MILLER V MINISTER OF PENSIONS[1947] 2 ALL E.R. 372, it was his position that the Claimants have been able to prove their case against the defendant that they worked for 25 and 16 years respectively with the defendant company. According to the Claimants counsel they no longer want to work for the defendant hence they approached it to pay their salaries and gratuities, but failed to, as they have the right to choose not to continue working for the defendant, thus they have prove their case and are entitled to reliefs sought. It was the further submission of learned Claimants counsel that the 1st Claimant is entitle to a gratuity of N1,675,705, whilst the 2nd Claimant is entitle to gratuity of the sum of N436,031.68 in accordance with their handbook. To the Claimants this fact was not controverted and thus deemed admitted. cited in support is the case of A.G.ABIA V A.G. FEDERATION, Supra. In its written reply, the Defendant reproduced the 3 issues it framed as stated above in this ruling and submitted that the defendant denied the Claimants allegation vide paragraphs 3(f), 4-10,11,12,13 and 14 of the Statement of defence and joined issues with them. It was the further submission of the defence counsel that paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of the statement of defence joined issues with the Claimants on the fact that the appointment of the Claimants have not been terminated, also that the Claimants are not entitle to gratuity and finally on the issue of jurisdiction raised but was not denied or challenged by the Claimants. Placing reliance on the case of A.G. ABIA V A.G. FEDERATION Supra, it was the Defendant's conclusion that by neither denying or joinder of issue it raised in paragraph 12 of its statement of defence, the Claimants are deemed to have admitted same to the effect that there is no dispute between it and the Claimants to vest this Court with jurisdiction to entertain this matter. Learned defence counsel reiterated the issue by posing the question again and that is whether the Claimants are still staff in the employ of the defendant or not, and if the answer is in the affirmative then they are not entitle to gratuity. Whilst urging the Court on the authority of NWANOSIKE V UDOSEN[1993] 4 NWLR. PT 290, P 684@ 693, to look into it records and went on to state that both Claimants under cross examination on 17th Sept. 2013, admitted that they had not resigned their appointment from the defendant company and that gratuities are only paid to retirees or disengaged, or staff that have resigned. To the defendant the onus of proving that the Claimants are entitle to arrears of salary or gratuity is on them. The case of ONYIA V ONYIA [2012] 3 NWLR. PT 1286, 182 @ 199 was cited in support of this assertion. It was the further argument of the defendant that the law is settled that Plaintiff cannot rely on the weakness of the case of the defendant to prove his case, in support the case of UJOATUONU V ANAMBRA GOVT,[2010] 15 NWLR. PT. 1217, 421 @ 439 was cited. ''I should point out that it is trite that plaintiff should prove his case and should not rely on the weakness of the defendants case even where the defendant did not lead any evidence .... in OMOREGBE V. LAWANI [1981] 3 - 4 SC 108, the apex Court held that: "Credible evidence which had not been controverted or challenged should be acted upon. Although where the Defendant has not given evidence it does not follow that any piece of evidence which cannot satisfy the standard of proof id-certum est of preponderance of evidence in civil suit has to be accepted by the Court. If the plaintiff has not proved his case, evidence of rebuttal does not arise". It was the conclusion of the defendant that the Claimants have failed, refused and/neglected to discharge the burden on them in prove of the reliefs sought and thus urge the Court to dismiss their claims and award cost in favour of the Defendant. After a careful and calm consideration of the processes filed, the oral testimonies of all the witnesses and the submissions of both counsel in their respective written addresses, I frame these issues for determination- 1. Whether or not this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this case, and 2. Whether or not the Claimants are entitled to reliefs sought. On issue one which is whether or not this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit. It is a settled principle of law that Courts are creation of statutes and it is the statute that created a particular court that will also confer on it, its jurisdiction. Jurisdiction may be extended not by the courts but by the legislature who gave it. See OBIUWEUBI V CENTRAL BANK OF NIG. [2011] 7 NWLR, 465; Now, jurisdiction is the authority or power which a Court has to adjudicate on matters in dispute between parties that are before it. I agree with the position of the learned defence counsel that parties cannot confer jurisdiction on the Court. The reasoning of Niki Tobi JSC in OKOLO V UBN [2004] 3 NWLR( PT 859) 87@ 108; is on point here, '' Jurisdiction, being the threshold of judicial power and judicialism and by extension extrinsic to the adjudication, parties cannot by connivance, acquiescence or collusion confer jurisdiction on a Court. As a matter of law, lack of jurisdiction cannot be waived by one or both parties. It is a hard matter of law clearly beyond the compromise of the parties. This is because parties cannot conspire to vest jurisdiction in a Court where there is none'' It has long been settled that a Court is competent, when it is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of members of the bench, the subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction; and the case comes before the Court was initiated by due process of law and upon fulfilment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. These requirements are conjuctive and not disjunctive, all the conditions must be met before a Court can assume jurisdiction. The implication of this is that where any of these conditions is lacking and the Court goes on to adjudicate on a suit, it becomes an exercise in futility as the decision arrived at amounts to a nullity, no matter how well conducted. See these cases MADUKOLU V NKENDILIM [1962] 1 ALL NLR 587; ALABI V AMOO [2003] 12 NWLR(835),537, [2003] 7.S.C.1, CAPTAIN C.T. OLOWU V THE NIGERIAN NAVY[2011] LPELR- 3127.S.C. The opposite facet of this is that parties cannot by their conduct or agreement wrestle away the jurisdiction properly conferred on a Court. It is trite that it is the claim of the claimant and his statement of facts that determines the jurisdiction of the Court; The claims of the Claimants are as stated above. By the expression of Section 254C (1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended( third alteration), this Court by subsection(1)(a); is competent to exercise jurisdiction over matters relating to or connected with among others health, safety welfare of labour, employee, worker and matters incidental thereto. The claims of the Claimants as endorsed on the complaint are indeed within the competence of this Court. I say so in view of the facts on record of this Court and the testimony of all the parties. The parties before this Court are in disagreement of whether or not the Claimants are entitle to the reliefs sought which are salary arrears and gratuity. This latin maxim Ubi jus ubi remedum ( where there is a right there is a remedy) is apt here. There is an assertion of right by the Cliamant for which this suit was filed by the Claimant. Courts of law are not busy bodies. The dockets of Courts this days are enormous for the Court than to engage itself in an un solicited intervention. It is from all I have said and the facts of this case as gleaned from the complaint and statement of facts that I hold and find that this Court is clothe with the jurisdiction to consider the reliefs sought and give a verdict. It appears to me that both parties are in agreement on these issues- 1. That the Claimants are in the employ of the defendant vide Exhibits B1, B2 and D1 up to May and June 2007, but were asked by the Defendant to sit at home and have since not been called back. 2. That the appointment of both Claimants have not been terminated. 3. That the representative of the Claimants and the Defendant had an agreement strictly on staff conditions of service as evidence by exhibit B5 in 2003. 4. That the Claimants have not been paid salary since the sit at home order by the Defendant. 5. That only a retiree, or a person who has resigned his appointment is entitle to gratuity. They however, move apart and in their different ways on the issues of payment of arrears of salary. On the part of the Claimants, learned Claimant's counsel submitted that the Claimants are no longer interested to work with the Defendant. It is interesting to note that the Claimants did not state this either in their written statements on oath or under cross examination. It has long been settled that facts not pleaded go to no issue. The Claimants cannot vide their written address raise a fresh issue that was not pleaded or alluded to at trial. The Court seeks refuge in the wisdom of the appeal Court in ABARHAM OSADARE & ORS V LIQUIDATOR, NIG. PAPER MILLS LTD & ANOR [2011] LPELR.C.A. Per.I.G. Mbaba. JCA. ''It has been stated many times that Counsel's address must be founded on evidence and the law, and not on the whimsical views of the Counsel, as it would amount to empty brow of hot air or grammar, no matter how eloquent, if otherwise'' Accordingly, the submission of learned Claimant's counsel on this issue is discountenanced. The Claimants also alleged that they have severally written to the defendant requesting for their salaries but failed to yield to their demands. The alleged letters as I stated above, are not before the Court. It was equally the submission of learned Defence counsel that they entered into an agreement with the affected staff and they agreed with the management to stay at home until they are able to reorganise the company. It has been observed that the Defendant has also failed/refused to produce the alleged agreement before the Court. It is the law of common place that he who asserts must prove. The law is trite that evidence must be tendered in proof of a fact. See GENEVA V AFRIBANK PLC. [2013] LPELR-20662(SC) OHOCHUKWU V A.G. OF RIVER STATE & ORS [2012] LPELR-7849(SC) and Section 135 Evidence Act 2011. It is in my calm view that the Defendant has failed to prove its averments in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of its statement of Defence, I so find and hold. It is a well-known principle of law that a court of law does not embark on a jamboree of fact finding, however in the circumstance of this case and primacy of facts before the Court, I wish to quickly embark on a short voyage to see if the defendant's stay at home order to the employees including the Claimants was premised on redundancy. I have searched to no avail the processes filed to see whether or not the Defendant declared the Claimants redundant, in view of the stay at home order that is ongoing. The only document available on record that explains the relationship between the parties i.e. Exhibit B5 ( the Agreement reached between the Maritime workers union of Nigeria and the Management of union Dicon Salt Plc on the staff conditions of Service for the period 1st Jan. 2003 to 31st December 2004); that would have helped, but that was found to be un true. Item 31that mentioned the issue did not declare any staff redundant. It was speculative of what would be applicable in such situation and nothing more. The provision of Section 20 of Labour Act CAP L1, LFN 2004, which provides for redundancy, provides for a condition precedent for a company declaring redundancy to fulfil and comply with and that has not been fulfilled by the Defendant's company. Section 20 (3) defines redundancy as ''an involuntary and permanent loss of employment caused by an excess of manpower''. This Court has held in plethora of cases including the case of OGBOSO & ORS V DELI FOOD NIG. LTD & ANOR [2010] 21 N.L.L.R.Pt 5, p 133 @ 151 whilst adopting the statement of BATE, SPJ in OBALAYE V DUNLOP NIG. LTD [1975] NNLR,220 @ 221-222, '' ... there can be no redundancy unless the loss of employment is caused by an excess of manpower. This does not mean that every man whose employment is terminated may regard himself as made redundant.. In other words, there must be a change in the circumstances of the business in which the employee is or has been employed and this change must result in a state of affairs where the employers find themselves with too many employees or too many employees in a particular place or for work of a particular kind. This is what excess manpower means and it must be shown to exist before a claim to have been made redundant may properly succeed''. Neither the Claimants nor the Defendant in this case has adduce evidence to show that the above painted scenario occurred in the instance case. It is the law that the Court cannot grant a relief not sought by the parties, or Courts are not father Christmas or charitable organization. It is in the light of this that the Court finds that this is not a case of redundancy and this Court cannot suo muto declare same in view of none compliance with the provisions of Section 20 of the Labour Act by the Defendant in this case as regards the subject. As regards reliefs sought which are for payment of arrears of salary and gratuity. As I had stated above, both the Claimants and the Defendant are in agreement that except an employee has retired from his employment, resigned or his appointment terminated, he is not entitle to gratuity. It would thus be an academic exercise to embark on a voyage of discovery on this claim. This view is more strengthened by the Claimants in their response under cross examination, when the 1st Claimant was asked, whether he has tendered his resignation letter or not, His answer was- '' NO! I have not tendered any resignation letter'' He also admitted that gratuity is paid when you are no longer working with the company either as a retired staff or as a staff forced to retire. The 2nd Claimant on his part also said under cross examination that '' My appointment has not been terminated and I have not tendered any resignation letter. gratuity is paid to a person who is retired or have been disengaged or resigned''. It is thus apparent from the above position of the Claimants that they are both in agreement with the Defendant that since they have not retired, resigned or their appointment terminated they are not entitled to gratuity. Consequently that claim fails, I so find and hold. However, that is not the case with regards to the issue of salary. Are the Claimants entitle to salary arrears for the period between 2007 and 2012? The answer is in the affirmative. I agree with the Claimants that they are entitle to payment of arrears of salary from 2007 up till date, This position is made so in view of the evidence on record. First, the Defendant as it could be distilled on record had asked the Claimants to stay at home until they can re organised themselves. See paragraph 4 (k) of the Defendant's witness written statement on oath i.e. exhibit DW1. (Mrs Sola Omorodion) She stated under cross examination that '' The Claimants have been staying at home without work and salary... I know they have dependants'' But she failed to give answer to how their dependants could be fed. To both Claimants they are ready and willing to work but the Defendant has failed or refused to give them work to do. The Defendant is unnecessarily keeping the fate of its employees (the Claimants inclusive) hanging in an unknown scale of uncertainty. The Claimants are neither provided work to do by their employer who is the Defendant in this case nor given the liberty to seek for another employment, this present still subsisting. The Claimants stated that they want to work but have not been called upon to so do. The 2nd Claimant stated under cross examination that he was at the premises to report for work when the Managing Director one Mr. Omiro invited them to the office, but he was not given any work to do. Now, the question begging for an answer is, are the Claimants entitle to salary? Or differently put, is the Defendant to pay the Claimants salary from 2007 till date? The answer is Yes! I say so in view of the provision of Section 17 of Labour Act CAP L1, LFN, 2004 as follows-- '' Except where a collective agreement provides otherwise, every employer shall, unless a worker has broken his contract, provide work suitable to the worker's capacity on every day ( except rest days and public holidays) on which the worker presents himself and is fit for work: and, if the employer fails to provide the work as aforesaid, he shall pay to the worker in respect of each day on which he has so failed wages at the same rate as would be payable if the worker had performed a day's work: ...'' The above provision of the law lends credence to the above position of the Court. There are exceptions to the above provision, but the situation in the instance case does not come under the exceptions to the above provisions as could be gleaned from Section 17(1)(a) and (b). It is thus clear as evinced by the letter, intent and tenor of the above provision that the Claimants are entitle to be paid salary for the period they have not been provided with any work to do by the Defendant. In aid of proof of the Claimants entitlement to be paid salary, the 1st Claimant frontloaded his pay advice for the months April 2005- June 2005., which shows that the 1st Claimant's net pay is N24, 298.93 per month and was admitted and marked as Exhibit B4.. The admissibility of this document was not impeached by the Defendant. Although the Defendant in paragraph 4 (e) of its witness written statement is not in agreement with this, she placed reliance on exhibit B3, which is the letter dated 5th Sept, 2003 salary increase of the 1st Claimant and nothing more. It is the law that an unchallenged evidence as rightly admitted by both counsel in their respective submissions are deemed admitted and may be relied on by the Court. It is consequent upon this that the Court in calculating the salary of both Claimants especially the 1st Claimants will seek refuge from the said exhibit B4 and hold that the Claimants from all that have been said in this judgment are entitle to their monthly salary from 2007 till the date of this judgment. The 1st Claimant is entitle to 80 months salary at the rate of N24, 298.93 per month. His arrears of rent is thus N1, 943,914.40; while the 2nd Claimant is entitle to the sum of N12,331.32 as admitted by the defendant in its statement of Defence and the written deposition of its witness Mrs Omoriodun. Although he according to his written deposition, paragraph 4 thereof that he is on a salary of N13,625.99, but did not substantiate this with any documentary evidence. Hence the Court will rely on the position of the Defendant as opposed to the 1st Claimant who produced a pay advice in prove of his monthly salary. The 2nd Claimant has been asked to stay at home since June 2007 till date, consequently he is entitle to be paid arrears of salary for 79 months. He is thus entitle to the sum of N 974,227.21 as salary arrears. The Claims of the Claimants succeed in part and for avoidance of doubt, I make the following orders-- 1. The Claimants are still in the employ of the Defendant and thus they are not entitle to gratuity. 2. The Claimants are entitle to arrears of salary of N1,943,914.40 for the 1st Claimant and N974,227.21 for the 2nd Claimant respectively. 3. The cost of N30,000.00 is to be paid in favour of the Claimants. 4. The order of this Court shall be complied with within 30 days of this Judgment in accordance with Order 21 Rule 4 of National Industrial Court Rules, 2007. Judgment is entered accordingly. HON. JUSTICE OYEWUMI OYEBIOLA.O. JUDGE