Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT LAGOS BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE OYEWUMI. O.O DATED 20TH OF FEBRUARY, 2015 SUIT NO: NICN/LA/172/2013 BETWEEN: 1. BRAIMOH SHANU DAVID 2. SAKIRU AZEEZ KEHINDE 3. TAOFEEK NOJEEM TEMI-TOPE 4. OLASUNKANMI LADEBGAYE 5. RAPHAEL OLAJIDE 6. CHIMA UCH IJEOMA 7. MICHAEL OLUWAFEMI 8. AYO AYINDE 9. EMMANUEL OHONSI 10. IFEANYI OGUAMALAM - CLAIMANTS 11. SUNDAY JOSEPH 12. ADEKOLA ADEYANJU ODO 13. REUBEN IDOWU 14. MOSURO AZEEZ 15. MICHAEL OGONYI 16. WAHEED OLADIPO 17. KAZEEM ADEFILA 18. OBINNA NWEKE 19. IBRAHIM OGUNDIPE 20. RAHEEM AKINLABI 21. RICHMOND UZOKWE V INTERIOR OPTIONS - DEFENDANT REPRESENTION- Marcus Eyarhono for the claimant Adebayo Oyagbola, O.M Giwah, O.O Ajose (Mrs) for the defendant JUDGMENT By a General Form of complaint dated 12th day of March, 2013 claimants filed a suit against the defendant praying for the following reliefs; 1. A DECLARATION that the defendant termination of the 1st to 20th claimant’s employment without notice, on the 17th of January, 2013 is in breach of their contract of employment with the defendant. 2. A DECLARATION that the 1st – 3rd and 12th claimants are entitled to gratuities from the defendant. 3. A DECLARATION that the 1st -20th claimants are each, entitled to their respective one month salary as may be prorated, for the month of January, 2013 from the defendant. 4. A DECLARATION that the 1st to 20th claimants are each, entitled to their respective one month salary in lieu of notice and bonus of December 2012 from the defendant. 5. A DECLARATION that the 21st claimant is entitled to one month salary in lieu of notice from the defendant. 6. The sum of N2,125,200.00 (Two Million One Hundred and Twenty Five Thousand, Two Hundred Naira) being the gratuity for the 1st – 3rd and 12th claimants. 7. The 1st – 20thclaimants respective salary as may be prorated, for the month of January, 2013. 8. The sum of N65,000.00, N59,888.89, N42,272.73, N46,200.00, N39,000.00, N44,386.36, N36,000.00,N28,000.00, N28,000.00, N28,000.00, N33,600.00, N57,200.00, N43,800.00, N47,300.00 N34,800, N33,600.00, N32,386.36, N42,893.36, N42,000.00, N34,172.73 being one month salary in lieu of notice for the 1st-20th claimant respectively. 9. The sums of N65,000.00, N59,888.89, N42,272.73, N46,200.00, N39,000.00, N44,386.36, N36,000.00,N28,000.00, N28,000.00, N28,000.00, N33,600.00, N57,200.00, N43,800.00, N47,300.00 N34,800, N33,600.00, N32,386.36, N42,893.36, N42,000.00, N34,172.73 Being December, 2012 bonus for the 1st – 20th claimant respectively. 10. The sum of N35,734.27 being the 21st claimant’s one month salary in lieu of notice. 11. AN ORDER of the Honorable Court directing the defendant, to disclose the appointed manager, if any, of the claimant’s pension and if none, to refund to the claimants all monies deducted from their salaries as contributions to the Contributory Pension Scheme. 12. Interest on any sum of money that may be awarded in favour of the claimants, at the rate of 21% from the date the defendant terminated the claimants employment up to the date of judgment and at any other rate the court may adjudge fair and just until the sum of money is liquidated. 13. And any other ORDER or further order(s) that the Honourable court may deem fit to make in circumstances of the case. ALTERNATIVELY (for the 1st – 3rd and 12th claimants and with respect to their claim for gratuity only, and for the 1st and 2nd claimants and with respect to their claim for salary in lieu of notice only) 1. The 1st – 3rd and 12th claimants claim five (5) year gratuity (within the period of the dates stated on their respective employment letter and 17th January, 2013 when their employment was terminated) against the defendant. 2. The 1st – 2nd claimants claim two (2) weeks salary in lieu of notice. It is the case of the claimants that the 1st claimant was employed as a production Staff on the 2nd of March, 2000. On the 25th day of July, 2007 he was issued an employment letter by the defendant. The 2nd claimant averred that he was employed in April, 2005 as a production staff in April, 2005 and he was issued an employment letter on the 25th day of July, 2007. The 3rd claimants averred that by an employment letter dated 2nd of October, 2007 the defendant employed him as an upholsterer. The 4th claimant averred that by an employment letter dated 16th day of October defendant employed him as an upholsterer. The 5th claimant averred that by a letter dated 5th day of October, 2009 he was employed as a staff by the defendant. The 6th claimant averred that by a letter dated 5th day of October, 2009 he was employed as a staff by the defendant. The 7th claimant stated that the defendant employed him as a carpenter vide a letter dated the 21st of June 2010. The 8th claimant was employed by the defendant vide a letter dated 21st day of June, 2010 as a sprayer. The 9th claimant, in his own case averred that the defendant by a letter dated 27th of September, 2011employed him as a carpenter apprentice. The 10th claimant was employed by the defendant vide a letter dated 27th of September, 2011 as a carpenter apprentice. The 11th claimant avers that he was an employee of the defendant until 17th of January, 2013 when his employment was terminated by the defendant. The 12th claimant avers that by a letter dated 3rd day of September, 2007 the defendant employed him as an upholsterer. The 13th claimant stated that the defendant employed him as an upholsterer by a letter dated 9th of October, 2008. The 14th claimant stated that by a letter dated 26th day of July, 2008 the defendant employed him as a carpenter. The15th claimant was employed by the defendant vide a letter dated 5th day of October, 2009. The 16th claimant was employed by the defendant until 17th day of January, 2013. The 17th claimant stated that he was employed as a carpenter by the defendant by a letter dated 22nd day of June, 2010. The 18th claimant avers that the defendant by a letter dated 27th day of September, 2011 employed him. The 19th claimant stated that he was in the employment of the defendant until 17th of January, 2013 when his employment was terminated by the defendant. The 20th claimant avers that until 17th of January, 2013 when his employment was terminated by the defendant. The 21st claimant avers that the defendant, by a letter dated 27th of September, 2011 employed him as a carpenter. He averred that by a letter dated 22nd of November, 2012 placed him on an indefinite suspension pending the outcome of its further investigation into his alleged involvement in an accident that earlier occurred in factory. That by a letter dated 1st day of December, 2010 he was summarily dismissed in November, 2012 without been given an opportunity to defend himself. The claimants stated that their contract of employment is governed by Staff Hand-book. That by paragraph 3.6.1of that staff handbook certain sum of money should be deducted from their monthly salary as their respective contribution to Contributory Pension Scheme. That by paragraph 2.3.2 of staff handbook stated that “any member of staff whose employment is to be terminated shall be given a one month notice of termination” and by paragraph 2.3.3 stated that as an alternative to and in lieu of notice of termination of employment, IO (the defendant) may pay to the member of staff the value of his salary for one month. Claimants averred that paragraph 2.3.4 of the staff handbook stated that “a member staff whose employment has been terminated shall be entitled to any gratuity he may have accrued under IO (defendant’s) gratuity policy less any outstanding debt he owes”. The 1st to 20th claimant averred that the defendant paid them double of their salary in every December as bonus, but failed to do so in December, 2012. Claimants also averred that by paragraph 3.7.1 of the staff handbook, it states that the defendant will pay gratuity to qualified employees who leave its employment otherwise than through summary dismissal. And by 3.7.2 stated that to qualify a gratuity an employee must have remained in the defendant’s full employment for a continuous period of at least five (5) complete years. The 1st – 21stclaimants by paragraph 3.7.3 listed the amount payable to a qualified employee with respect of the length of service and basic salary. LENGTH OF CONTINUOUS SERVICE NUMBER OF MONTHS salary 5 years 24 months 6 years 26 months 7 years 28 months 8 years 29 months 9 years 32 months 10 years 34 months 11 years 36 months 12 years 38 months 13 years 40 months 14 years 42 months 15 years and more 44 months. The 1st – 20th claimants averred that in a meeting dated 14th of January, 2013 with the management of the defendant, they were informed that the defendant could not meet its target for the year, that the defendant has cancelled its Gratuity Scheme and in effect the defendant’s employees including the claimants would not be paid gratuity. The 1st – 20th protested the said new policy on the ground that they are entitled to their already accrued gratuity in accordance with the pre-existing contract of service. That as part of their protest they decided to down tool until their demand is met and the defendant in reaction to their protest the defendant’s management on the 17th of January, 2013 prevented the claimants from entering its premises and also there and then their employment was terminated without prior notice. The claimants were asked to collect their termination letter from the security man. The claimant except the 7th, 12th, 14th and 20th refused to accept the employment letters. However and based on the advice of the claimants solicitor the 1st-6th, 8th-11th, 13th and 15th- 19thclaimants collected their termination letter. That to their surprise they were summarily dismissed by the defendant. The 1st -20th claimants stated that they instructed their solicitor to formally demand their entitlement from the defendant. In response, the defendant stated that they are not entitled to any of the claims of entitlements as they were summarily dismissed for riotous actions on their client’s factory and business premises. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd claimants averred that they are entitled to 12 years gratuity in the sum of N864,500 from the defendant, 7 years gratuity in the sum of N528,220 and 5 years gratuity in the sum of N252,000. The 12th claimant averred that he is entitled to the sum of N480,000 as gratuity from the defendant. The 21st claimant stated that his monthly salary until when he was summarily dismissed by the defendant in December 2012 was N35,734.27. The 1st to 20th claimants averred that their monthly salary in the defendant until the date of termination was N65,000.00, N59,888.89, N42,272.73, N46,200.00, N39,000.00, N44,386.36, N36,000.00, N28,000.00, N28,000.00, N28,000.00, N33,600.00, N57,200.00, N43,800.00, N47,300.00 N34,800, N33,600.00, N32,386.36, N42,893.36, N42,000.00, N34,172.73. The claimants averred that their pension managers were never disclosed to them. During trial, the claimants testified through CW1 and CW2 tendered documents which were admitted and marked as Exhibits SD1 –SD20, RU. The defendant on the other hand averred that prior to 1st of July 2007 the 1st claimant was not in the employment of the defendant as he was an independent contractor retained to manufacture some item ordered by the defendant. That it did not pay the 1st claimant salary or wage as he got his wages out of the fees paid on specific items by customers. In response to paragraphs 3,4,5,6 of claimants statement of facts, defendant stated that prior to 1st of July, 2007 it had no production staff and merely contracts several groups of artisans to do the work. The defendant denies that the 11th, 16th, 19th, and 20th claimants employment was terminated as they were summarily dismissed. The defendant averred further that on or about the 20th of November, 2012 there was an accident in the factory which led to an employee’s loss of several fingers on his hand. An extensive investigation into the cause of the accident reveals the fact that it was due to the negligence of the 21st claimant in disregard of the safety rules in the factory. The 21st claimant was duly suspended pending the outcome of the investigation. The investigating panel found that the 21st claimant had acted in grossly negligent manner and in effect summarily dismissed. The defendant admitted that it made deductions from the salaries of the claimants as their contribution to their contributory pension scheme and same remitted to each claimant’s pension fund manager but some members of staff refused to select a pension fund manager to whom the deductions made from their salary would be remitted. Defendant averred that from June 2012 until December 2012 it deducted the sum of N1890.00 monthly from the salary of the 11th claimant in which totals the sum of N13,230 in addition to the employer’s contribution in same sum and thus an aggregate of N26,460.00 shall be paid by the defendant to any pension fund manager the 11th claimant so nominates. The defendant stated that claimants with the exception of the 21st claimant were summarily dismissed due to mass riotous act and refusal to obey instructions and actions that constituted a threat to the persons of both other staff members and management of the defendant. That upon resumption of work in 2013, the management and the members of staff held a welcoming meeting in which certain changes were outlined by the defendant in its handbook and including the removal of the clause for payment of gratuity. At the end of meeting most of the members of staff failed to return to their duties and stayed behind to reconvene another meeting. That one Mr. Adeoye the Assistant Human Resources Manager, tried to intervene and ensure peace but the claimants started to shout and chant that they would not go back to their duties. Mr Adeoye was able to convince them that he would meet with their various supervisors but the claimant nominated one Shina Isa to join the supervisors in the meeting with Mr. Adeoye. The supervisor persuaded the claimants to return to work but they refused. That at no time did the claimants declare to the Human resources officer or the management of the defendant that they were embarking on a trade dispute with the defendant. Upon the close of work, and the process of signing out, the claimants instigated the drivers to join in the protest and when one of the drivers openly refused to be cajoled into such, the 3rd claimant Taofeek NojeemTemitope gave him a slap which resulted into a scuffle and one of the mobile police men was forced to release tear gas. The production workers resumed on Tuesday 15th of January, 2013 on the defendant premises but refused to do any work. The management upon been properly briefed decided to close down the factory to avoid its machines from being destroyed or avoid any form of industrial accident. Based on this decision, the claimants were directed to leave the premises of the defendant but they continued to chant at the gate that they would not work. Defendant upon receiving the report of incident at the gate directed that the 3rd claimant be dismissed for gross misconduct. The management of the defendant in a meeting decided to summarily dismiss all the production workers. Defendant averred that the dismissed production workers were pleaded for by the administrative staff to be reabsorbed into the management which the defendant’s management accepted but with an instruction that they will be re-interviewed on the 17th of January, 2013 to root out those who were the actual ring leaders of the riot. That 47 out of 73 initial staff dismissed were reabsorbed but the 1st -3rd -6th, 12th -20th claimants failed to show up for the interview and upon investigation it was revealed that the aforementioned claimants were deeply involved in the riot. That 7th-9th and 11th claimants after the interview were also found to be involved in the riot so they were not reabsorbed. Defendant further averred that payment of December bonus is exclusively gratuitous and to the discretion of the defendant’s management. However the bonus for December 2012 was paid to all claimants with exception to the 21st claimant as he was summarily dismissed. That the claimants are not entitled to their claims as they were summarily dismissed by the defendant. That this claim is baseless, frivolous and same should be dismissed by the court. During trial, the defendant testified through one Ayodeji Adeoye as DW and tendered documents which were admitted and marked as Exhibits AA1-AA6. The defendant on the 22nd of September, 2014 filed its Written Address wherein it raised five issues for the court’s determination; 1. Whether the violent and riotous conduct of the 1st- 20th Claimants and their refusal to work without following the duly laid out grievance procedures in the Defendant's handbook or duly and formally declaring a trade dispute in accordance with the Trade Dispute Act did not constitute conduct entitling the Defendant to summarily dismiss them and whether in the light of such dismissal they have not forfeited any rights to any entitlement whatsoever? 2. Whether the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 12th Claimants have proved that they are entitled to the payment of gratuity? 3. Whether the 1st – 20th Claimants have proved that they have a right/entitlement to be paid bonus for the month of December 2012 and whether they have proved that they were not in fact paid? 4. Whether the 21st Claimant has proved that he is entitled to one month salary in lieu of notice? 5. Whether the deductions made under the Pension Reform Act from the salaries of the Claimants were not duly remitted to the Pension Fund Administrators nominated by each of the Claimants? On issue one, counsel submitted that from the evidence in chief of CWI before the Court the Management of the Defendant at a meeting with the Claimants on 14th January 2013 informed its workers (the Claimants inclusive) that it has cancelled the gratuity scheme. All the production staff held a separate meeting and agreed at the said meeting not to resume work again until they were paid their purported gratuities. Claimants protested against the Defendant's policy by down tools and refusing to work until they were paid their accrued gratuity. That the action of the lst -20th Claimants to down tool in protest against the Defendant's cancellation of gratuity we submit, falls within the definition of a strike as defined in Section 48 of the Trade Disputes Act CAP T8 LFN 2004 which defines a strike as: "the cessation of work by a body of persons employed acting in combination, or a concerted refusal or a refusal under a common understanding of any number of persons employed to continue to work for an employer in consequence of a dispute, done as a means of compelling their employer or any person or body of persons employed, or to aid other workers in compelling their employer or any persons or body of persons employed, to accept or not to accept terms of employment and physical conditions of work; ... " From the above, it is clear that the 1st -20th claimants embarked on a strike without declaring a trade dispute in accordance with the accepted practice in industrial relations. Section 48 of the Trade Disputes Act defines a trade dispute as: "Any dispute between employers and workers or between workers and workers, which is connected with the employment or non-employment, or the terms of employment and physical conditions of work of any person". Counsel cited the case of CORPORATE AFFAIRS COMMISSION V. AMALGAMATED UNION OF PUBLIC CORPORATIONS, CIVIL SERVICE TECHNICAL AND RECREATIONAL SERVICE EMPLOYEES [2004] DJ NIC 454 AT 462 The above principle as laid down by Court states that a formal declaration in writing by a worker or group of workers to their employer is a condition precedent for declaring a dispute. This the 1st to 20th claimant has failed to do. No evidence whatsoever was led by the Claimants to show that there was a formal declaration of Trade Dispute in writing thus the strike embarked upon by the 1st - 20 h Claimants on the 14th and 15th of January 2013 was illegal and constituted an act of insubordination and also against the spirit of the provision of the Trade Disputes Act. Counsel further illustrating the illegality of the strike embarked upon by the 1st - 20th Claimants on the 14th and 15th January 2013, stated the provisions of paragraph 6.8.1 to paragraph 6.8.8 of exhibit AA1 the condition of service of the defendant which contains and set out the internal procedure for the settlement of disputes/grievance between the Defendant and its employees. The 1st - 20th Claimants totally failed to comply with this procedure. The Claimants cannot approbate and reprobate by relying on Exhibit AA1 as the basis of their claims against the Defendant and on the other hand deliberately ignored and refuse to comply with certain regulatory provisions of Exhibit AA1. Counsel cited the case of NATIONAL UNION OF HOTELS AND PERSONAL SERVICE WORKERS V. BARKA DAZUWA INTERNATIONAL HOTEL KANO [1993] DJNIC 339; Section 4 (1) of the Trade Disputes Act. Section 4 (1) of the Trade Disputes Act states that: "If there exists agreed means for settlement of the dispute apart from this Act, whether by virtue of the provisions of any agreement between organizations representing the interests of employers and organisation of workers or any other agreement, the parties to the dispute shall first attempt to settle it by that means" Counsel submitted that the Defendant's decision to summarily dismiss the 1st - 20th Claimants was carried out in line with the provisions of paragraphs 8.6.2, 8.6.2.2, 8.6.2.4, and 8.6.2.5 which are (i) conducts likely to endanger the organization's property, well being and operations or the safety of others; (ii) Act of Sabotage (iii) Dereliction of Duty; and (iv) Gross Insubordination He cited Blacks Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition defines dereliction at page 475 as "Abandonment, especially through neglect or moral wrong". It also goes further to define dereliction in the performance of duty as: "Wilful or negligent failure to perform assigned duties. " Therefore, it suffices to say that the 1st - 20th Claimants' willful refusal to work on the 14th and 15thJanuary 2013 without declaring a trade dispute can be categorised as a dereliction of duty. He also submitted that Blacks Law Dictionary (Supra) also defines the word insubordination at page 814 as: "A wilful disregard of an employer's instruction, especially behaviour that gives the employer cause to terminate a worker's employment" "An act of disobedience to proper authority especially a refusal to obey an order that a superior officer is authorized to give" Continuing, counsel submitted that the act of the 1st – 20th claimants on the 14th and 15th January 2013 in defiance of DWI 's order to resume work falls squarely within the definition of gross insubordination and the Claimants therefore were rightly summarily dismissed by the Defendant. Counsel cited the case of SULE V. NIGERIAN COTTON BOARD [1985] 2 NWLR (PT. 5) 17. SEE ALSO THE CASE OF D. A. (NIG) AIEP V. OLUWADARE [2007] 7 NWLR (PT. 1033) 336 AT 365 PARA E- F where the Court of Appeal held that: "Where an employee refuses to obey a lawful order, his employer is at liberty to summarily dismiss him for disobedience and insubordination. .. " That the instant case, the Defendant summarily dismissed the 1st -20th Claimants after they had: (i) refused to work on the 14th and 15th January,2013; (ii) refused to comply with an order to resume work; (iii) conducted themselves in a violent and riotous manner and incited other employees not to work; and (iv) threatened acts of destruction and sabotage of the Defendant's machines Counsel stated that the 1st -20th Claimants purportedly justified their action to refuse to work and cause chaos in the factory by alleging that they were all affected by the cancellation of the gratuity scheme. However in their claims before the Court, only the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 12th Claimants claimed for gratuity on the ground that they were allegedly qualified for same. Thus, the 17 remaining Claimants' acts of violence and insubordination were clearly and particularly unreasonable and unjustified as they did not even claim to be qualified for and or affected by the Defendant's cancellation of the gratuity scheme in 2013. It is trite law that an employer can summarily dismiss its workers for their failure to resume normal work, despite warning from their employer stating consequences of the illegal industrial action and thus such dismissed employee/s is/are not entitled to any entitlement whatsoever. Counsel urged the Honourable Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Defendant. It is the contention of the defendant on issue two, that during trial of this suit, the lst Claimant tendered and admitted exhibits SDl, SD2, SD3, and SD12 as the employment letters of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 12th Claimants. All these letters of employment set out in clear words and without reference whatsoever to any extrinsic document, the terms of employment of the aforementioned Claimants. None of the terms of employment either expressly or impliedly contained any provision for the payment of gratuity. The 1st, 2nd, 3rdand 12th Claimants after being duly satisfied with the terms contained in their respective letters of employment accepted the offer of the Defendant by appending their signature at the acceptance column of the said letters. Counsel also contended that in the year 2009, the Defendant issued to its employees, a Staff Handbook (Exhibit AAl). That the1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 12th Claimants are relying on paragraph 3.7.2 of exhibit AAI for their claim of gratuity. The paragraph states that: "To qualify for gratuity, an employee must have remained in IO's full time employment for a continuous period of 5 years" That to determine whether the 1st, 2nd, 3rdand 12thClaimants are qualified for and or entitled to the payment of gratuity, there is need to; (i) consider the specific terms of employment contained in the letters of employment of the aforementioned Claimants; (ii) consider whether exhibit AAI applies retroactively to the date of employment of the aforementioned Claimants; and (iii) consider whether the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 12th Claimants have continuously worked for 5 years from the date exhibit AAI was issued (2009) to the date they were summarily dismissed from the Defendant's employment The relevant provisions of exhibit SDI states: "Based on our new dispensation, kindly find below our terms and conditions of employment 1. Remuneration Your remuneration shall be N360, 000. 00 per annum broken down as follows: Basic Salary Housing 126,000.00 per annum Allowance Transport 100,800.00 per annum Allowance Lunch 43,200.00 per annum Allowance Utility 54,000.00 per annum Allowance 36,000.00 per annum 2. Hours of Work Your hours of work shall be 7:45 a.m. to 6.p.m. Monday to Friday and 8 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on Saturday. You may be required to work longer than stated above 3. Medical Treatment The company will only be responsible for limited medical treatment of employees as well as medical treatment of any injury sustained in the course of duty, which is covered for under our Workmen's Compensation Insurance Policy. 4. Confidentiality &Loyalty Confidentiality about company operations, documents & client's affairs is expected from all staff. Please do not disclose any information about Interior Options or its activities to any person other than in a marketing capacity. The Company values and rewards loyalty from staff at all times. 5. Termination of Service No probation is required as you have been with us for some years now. However, any intention to terminate the appointment by you or by company will be carried out with a two week notice or two weeks salary in lieu of notice by either party 6. Annual Leave: You shall be entitled to 3 weeks vacation annually 7. Acceptance of Offer Please sign and return the attached copy of this letter to us to signify your acceptance of the offer and the terms and conditions contained therein. We wish you a successful and rewarding tenure with our company. Yours faithfully, For Interior Options Limited. Admin HR Manager ACCEPTANCE FORM I ……………………. Accept the offer of employment. I understand accept and hereby agree to fully by the condition contained herein stated. ……………….. Signed. From the above, it is clear that none of the clauses contained in the terms of employment expressly or impliedly puts the Defendant under any contractual obligation to pay gratuity to the Claimants as at the date of their employment and prior to 2009. Having submitted that exhibits SD1, SD2, SD3 and SD12 are the documents that set out the contractual obligations of the Claimants and the Defendant from the Claimants' respective dates of employment to the year 2009, it is logical to infer that any right conferred by exhibit AA1 from the date of its introduction in 2009 takes effect from 2009. The Claimants' basis of their claim for gratuity is based on paragraph 3.7.1 of exhibit AAI. The lst, 2nd, 3rd, and 12th Claimants erroneously calculated the 5 years from the year 2007 as exhibit AA1was introduced in 2009. Those accrued years of service prior to 2009 are not consideration for entitlement. Thus from 2009 to 2013 when they were dismissed from the employment of the defendant equals four years which is less than the requirement for the claim of entitlement. Counsel submitted that it is an uncontradicted evidence that the 1st 2nd, 3rd and 12th claimants engaged in acts of violation and insubordination. Thus were rightly dismissed for dereliction of duty and they are not entitled to gratuity. Counsel submitted as regards issue three, that it is the position of the law that employers are not contractually bound to pay bonuses. He cited the case of MANAGEMENT OF UNION BANK OF NIGERIA LIMITED V NATIONAL UNION OF BANKS, INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL INSTUITIONS EMPLOYEES[1983] DJNIC 123 AT 124. Counsel submitted that despite not being legally bound to pay bonuses to claimants, it went ahead do so in line with its discretionary policy and paid 1st -20th claimants for the year 2012 and this assertion was not controverted by the claimants. He urged the court to hold in favour of the defendant. On issue four, counsel submitted that the CW2 admitted to be involved in the accident on the 22nd November, 2012. That after much investigation, it was found that the accident was caused by the gross negligence of the CW2 in breach of paragraph 7.2.4 of exhibit AA1, hence he was dismissed in December, 2012. That CW2 never contested his dismissal until June 2013 when the other claimants filed an action against the defendant. Counsel also submitted that the CW2 having been dismissed in accordance with paragraph 7.2.4 of Exhibit AA1, is not entitled to the payment of one month salary in lieu of notice. He cited the case of EZE SPRING BANK PLC [2011] 18 NWLR (PT. 1274) 113 AT 131-132 PARAS G-B On issue five, defendant admitted to making deduction from claimants salary but remitted same in the claimants pension fund administrators nominated by the claimants except the 11th claimant. Defendant urged the court to resolve this suit in its favour. The claimants on the 17th day of October, 2014 filed their final written addresses wherein they distilled three issues for the court’s consideration viz: 1. Whether the Defendant termination of the 1st -21st Claimants employment is wrongful and thereby entitle the 1st- 21stClaimants to their respective one month salary in lieu of notice from the Defendant. 2. Whether the 1st -20th claimants are entitled to their respective salary for the period of 1st of January, 2014 up to the day the defendant terminated their employment. 3. Whether the 1st, 2nd 3rd and 12th claimants are entitled to gratuity from the defendant. It is the submission of counsel on issue one, that by paragraph 34 of the Statement of defence all the claimants with the exception of the 21st claimants were summarily dismissed from the defendant employment on the 15th January, 2013 due to mass insurrection, riotious acts refusal to obey instructions and actions that constituted a threat to the persons of both other staff members and the management of the defendant. Counsel stated that in an ordinary master and servant relationship, the master is not bound to give reasons for terminating the employment of his employees, as he is at liberty to hire and fire at any time, provided he complies with the contract of employment. GARUBA V KIC LTD [2005] NWLR (PT 917) PAGE 160 AT 179 PAR. A-B; SPRING BANK PLC V BABATUNDE [2012] NWLR (PART 1292) PAGE 83 AT PAGE 101 PAR A-C. Counsel urged the court to consider whether the defendant complied with the applicable terms in terminating the employment of claimants. Continuing he submitted that at pages 51-54 of Exhibit AA1 which states the procedure to be taken before an employee can be summarily dismissed. That where a contract of employment provides for a Disciplinary Procedure, the employer is bound to adhere to the procedure. Counsel submitted that there is no evidence before the court that the defendant observed any of the stages of the disciplinary Procedure in terminating the 1st -21stclaimants employment. The defendant again did not sign Exhibit SD23 and as such it has no evidential value. Counsel submitted that Exhibits SD23 and AA6 issued to the 3rd claimant is contradictory and he urged the court to discountenance with the documents. Counsel urged the court to hold in favour of the claimants. Counsel posited as regards issue two, that exhibit SD23 shows that the 1st – 20th claimants were at work up to the 15th day of January, 2013. That the defendant pays the claimant monthly salary and if the claimants had remained in the employment of defendant, they would have earned their full salary. Counsel submitted that the defendant is liable to pay the claimants their respective salary for the period of 1st of January, 2013 up to the day the defendant terminated their employment. On issue three, counsel argued that the defendant contended that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 12th claimants are not entitled to gratuity as Exhibit AA1 the conditions of service was issued to the claimants in 2009. He submitted that if Exhibit AA1, had been intended to commence in 2009, the defendant would have expressly stated that in the Exhibit. That the figure “2009” does not represent in clear terms any date whatsoever. He also submitted that the claims of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 12th claimants as per their gratuity was not traverse and neither was it pleaded that Exhibit AA1 is to take effect from 2009. He cited the case OLOWOOFOYEKU V. OLOWOOFOYEKU [2011] 1 NWLR (Part 1227) Page 177 at Page 202 Par. D – F; STATE V. OLAOOTUN [2011]10 NWLR (Part 1256) at Page 524 at Pages 558 - 559 Par. G –B Counsel submitted that exhibit AA1 is incorporated to the respective contract of employment of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 12th claimants with the defendant. That paragraph 3.7.2 of Exhibit AA1 stated that “to qualify for gratuity, an employee must have remained in IO’s full time employment for a continuous period of five years” Counsel in response to the defendant’s submission that the Defendant reserves the right to cancel the provisions for gratuity and that having cancelled same, the 1st 2nd, 3rd and 12thClaimants are not entitled to be paid gratuity by the Defendant submitted that the Defendant may reserve the right to vary the terms of its contract of employment, from time to time, it cannot vary a term of the contract at any time and apply the variation retroactively. That by the principle of Offer and Acceptance in the Law of Contract, where an offer is accepted it becomes binding on both parties. Thus the Defendant is liable to pay gratuity that had already accrued in favour of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 12th Claimants before the date the Defendant decided to cancel same, and that the 1st 2nd, 3rd and 12th Claimants are entitled to, at least, five (5) years gratuity from the Defendant. He submitted that where termination is wrongful, the employee, in addition to his one month salary in lieu of notice, is also entitled to be paid all benefits that have accrued to him under the contract of employment. Counsel urged the Court to grant the Claimants claims against the Defendant. The defendant on the 27th of October, 2014 filed its reply on points of law in response to the written submissions of the claimants. Defence counsel submitted that Claimants assert that the letters of summary dismissal of all the Claimants except the 14th and 15thClaimants, exhibit SD23 has no evidential value and cannot be relied upon because it was not signed by the Defendant. Counsel submitted that the essence of exhibit SD23 was to communicate to the Claimants, their summary dismissal from the Defendant's employment and same was duly received and complied with by the Claimants. Thus exhibit SD23 is of evidential value as it duly communicated the instructions of the Defendant to the Claimants that they have been summarily dismissed from the Defendant's employment. Counsel submitted that the Claimants contended that it is not stated anywhere in the Defendant's Staff Handbook, Exhibit AA1 that the said staff handbook took effect in 2009 onwards. Counsel submitted that the statement "© 10 2009, All rights reserved" inscribed on every page of Exhibit AA1 indicates the commencement date of Exhibit AAl. It is trite law that copyright shall be conferred by the Copyright Act on every such work eligible for copyright of which the author is at the time when the work was made, a qualified person. See Section 2 (l) of the Copyright Act CAP C28 LFN 2004. The statement "© 10 2009, All rights reserved" in this instance indicates the time when exhibit AA1 was made. Counsel urged the Court to hold that Exhibit AA1 was published in 2009 and discountenance the Claimants' argument in their Written Address. Finally, counsel submitted it is trite law that when any document bearing a date has been proved, it is presumed to have been made on the date it bears. He cited Section 157 of the Evidence Act. Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the Claimants' claim I have insightfully considered the processes filed by the parties, the argument of both counsel and the authorities relied upon by the parties in support of their respective cases. It is the calm view of the court that the crux of the matter in this case seeking the court's decision are; 1. Whether or not the 1st and 2nd claimants were independence contractors or had a contract of service with the defendant? 2. Whether or not there was a trade dispute between the claimants and the defendant. 3. Whether from the circumstances of this case, the claimants were given fair hearing before their appointments were determined , and if the answer is in the negative, was their dismissal wrongful or not. 4. Whether the claimants are entitle to reliefs sought. The claimants in this suit were in various capacities employees of the defendant until 17th of January, 2013 when they were summarily dismissed. It is the claimants' position that in a meeting dated 14th of January, 2013 with the management of the defendant, they were informed that the defendant could not meet its target for the year, that the defendant has cancelled its Gratuity Scheme and in effect the defendant’s employees including the claimants would not be paid gratuity. The 1st – 20th claimants protested the said new policy on the ground that they are entitled to their already accrued gratuity in accordance with the pre-existing contract of service. That as part of their protest they decided to down tool until their demand is met and the defendant in reaction to their protest the defendant’s management on the 17th of January, 2013 prevented the claimants from entering its premises and also there and then their employment was terminated without prior notice. The claimants were asked to collect their termination letters from the security man and to their surprise they were summarily dismissed by the defendant. The defendant on the other hand contended that claimants were summarily dismissed due to mass riotous act and refusal to obey instructions and actions that constituted a threat to the persons of both other staff members and management of the defendant. That upon resumption of work in 2013, the management and the members of staff held a welcoming meeting in which certain changes were outlined by the defendant in its handbook and including the removal of the clause for payment of gratuity. At the end of meeting most of the members of staff stayed behind to reconvene another meeting. That one Mr Adeoye the Assistant Human Resources Manager, tried to intervene and ensure peace but the claimants started to shout and chant that they would not go back to their duties. Mr Adeoye was able to convince them that he would meet with their various supervisors. The supervisor persuaded the claimants to return to work but they refused. The production workers resumed on Tuesday 15th of January, 2013 on the defendant premises but refused to do any work. The management upon being properly briefed decided to close down the factory to avoid its machines from being destroyed or avoid any form of industrial accident. Based on this decision, the claimants were directed to leave the premises of the defendant but they continued to chant at the gate that they would not work. Defendant upon receiving the report of the incident at the gate directed that the 3rd claimant be dismissed for gross misconduct. The management of the defendant in a meeting decided to summarily dismiss all the production workers. Now, before the court can make any decision or pronouncement on an issue based on employment or labour, it has to be established that there is a contractual relationship, establishing an employer/employee relationship between the parties. A contract of employment may be in writing, oral or implied by conduct of parties. This contract might be one for service or of service. The Court in SHENA SECURITIES LTD V. AFROPACK NIG. LTD & 2 ORS[ 2008] 6 CLRN 1, made a distinction between the two types thus- a. If payments are made by way of “wages” or salaries”, this is indicative that the contract is one of service. If it is for service, the independent contractor gets his payment by way of “fees”. In a like manner, where payment is by way of commission only or on the completion of the job, that indicates that the contract is for service. b. Where the employer supplies the tools and other capital equipment, there is a strong likelihood that the contract is that of employment or of service. But where the person engaged has to invest and provide capital for the work to progress, that indicates that it is a contract for service. c. In a contract of service/employment, it is inconsistent for an employer to delegate his duties under the contract. Thus, where the contract allows a person to delegate his duties there under, it becomes a contract for service. d. Where the hours of work are not fixed it is not a contract of employment/of service. e. It is not fatal to the existence of a contract of employment/of service that the work is not carried out on the employer’s premises. However, a contract which allows the work to be carried outside the employer’s premises is more likely to be a contract for service. f. Where an office accommodation and a secretary are provided by the employer, it is a contract of service/of employment." It is apparent from the decision of the apex court above that the distinction between a contract of service and for service or what is also known as independent contractor are as espoused above. In a contract of employment the employee must be under the control of the employer, he must be using equipments supplied by the employer and would be placed on a salary or wage. Whilst an independent contractor would as the name implies, the employee would employ his own equipment in discharging his responsibility under the contract, he would be paid commission. The work in a contract for service is usually done not at the premises of the employer. Now, I went the whole hug of making the above distinction between a contract of service and for service, in view of the assertion of the defendant that the 1st and 2nd, and 12th claimants were independent contractors to the defendant, the claimant witness who is also the 1st claimant in this case admitted under cross examination that they were contractors in the defendant employment before year 2007, when they were issued with an employment letters, thereby establishing a new contract with them which is that of service with the defendant. The law is of moment that facts admitted need no further prove. It is thus plain that the 1st 2nd and 12th claimants' contract of employment commenced with the defendant on July 25th, 2007 vide exhibits SD1, SD2 and SD12. I so find. As regards the second issue, which is whether or not there was a trade dispute between the claimants and the defendant, it is the defendant's argument that the disagreement that culminated in the claimants refusal to work was a trade dispute and went on that the claimant embarked on strike. Cited in support of this is Section 48 of the trade dispute Act. I am on the same page and in total agreement with the defence counsel as regards the definition of Trade dispute as stipulated by Section 48. I however, disagree with the fact that what transpired between the claimants who are just 21 staffs out of so many other staff in the defendant's company and the defendant on the 14th of January, 2013 was a trade dispute. I say so because on the authority of APENA V N.U.P.P.P.P.[2003] 8 NWLR(PT. 822) 426, for a dispute to qualify as a trade dispute, it must be- 1. a dispute between a worker and worker; or 2. a dispute between a worker and his trade union; or 3. a dispute having some industrial colouration. The situation in this instance case is basically different from what transpired between the claimants and the defendant on 14th January, 2013. The evidence before the Court is to the effect that the claimants who do not represent any trade union were invited to a management meeting where they were informed about management decision to discontinue payment of an existing gratuity to the claimants. None of the qualifications stated supra is likened to the scenario painted by the parties on record, to have qualified the incident as a trade dispute. Consequent upon which I find and hold that the incident of 14th January, 2013 between the claimants and the defendant was neither a trade dispute nor did the claimants embarked on strike. I so hold. It is the basic principle of law that an employer has all the rights to hire and fire his employee but where it becomes wrongful is where such right is exercised in contravention with the contract of employment. The claimants averred that the termination and dismissal of their employment was wrongful as same was done in breach of their terms of employment. The defence on the other hand contended that the dismissal of the claimants was effected in good faith as same was done in accordance with the contract of employment. The bedrock of the terms of employment are as contained in the claimants' respective letters of employment and the employees handbook , tendered and marked in this case as exhibits SD1-SD20 and AA1 and both parties are ad idem on this. Courts are enjoined to confine themselves to these two documents and should not go outside of same. all that the judex need do is jus dicere and not jus dare. Meaning that the court can only interpret the contract and not to enact new clauses into the existing one. SEE FRANK JOWAN & 77 ORS DELTA STEEL COMPANY LTD [2013] ACELR, P. 18 @ 20. Now a perusal of exhibit AA1, i.e. the handbook, specifically, Page 21 paragraphs 2.4 provides thus; “IO may, without notice dismiss from its employment any member of its staff found to have committed any act of gross misconduct” It is on record that the 1st -20th claimant were summarily dismissed on the 15th of January, 2013 from the employment of the defendant. Now the position of the law is that an employer can dismiss its employee for gross misconduct. However, the alleged act of gross misconduct under the common law, must be brought to the fore for the employee to respond to. This in effect is to ensure that the cardinal principle of law of fair hearing is complied with. Exactly put, an allegedly erring employee must be given an opportunity to state his own side of the story before dismissal. The law is that the employee accused of gross misconduct must either be given a query, allowing him to answer same and or investigation committee or panel instituted to investigate the alleged misconduct, the employee having been given the opportunity to be heard before a decision is taken. See the case of B.A. IMONIKHE V. UNITY BANK PLC[2014] 4 ACELR,39 @ 43. This requirement of fair hearing is an inalienable right of an employee before his dismissal. It is a right rooted and demonstrated in the Holy books. It is therefore, unconscionable for employees as it is in this case to be summarily dismissed without given an opportunity to express their side of the case, which affect their means of livelihood and those of their dependants. Their dismissal cannot however, be justified in the absence of adequate opportunity offered to the employees to explain, justify or else defend the alleged misconduct and before the defendant dispensed with the claimants' service summarily. SEE. MR JAMES O. AVRE V NIGERIA POSTAL SERVICE [2014] 46 NLLR (PT.147) 1; EKUNOLA V CBN & ANOR [2013] LPELR 20391; AIYETAN V. THE NIG INSTITUTE OF OIL PALM RESEARCH (NIFOR) [1987] 3 NWLR (PT. 59) 48 ,SC. Where the apex Court held that: ''an employer, before dismissing his employee, must satisfy the requirements of fair hearing by bringing the allegation(s) against the employee to his notice and affording him adequate time to reply thereto.'' It is infact a provisions of exhibit AA1 clause 8.0 under the heading DISCIPLINE' specifically clause 8.3 that in discipline a staff the defendant shall give a query to the erring staff whose conduct calls for disciplinary action. Warning letters may also be issued in deserving circumstances. It is obvious that none of these procedures was followed by the defendant in its purported summary dismissal of the claimants. It is interesting to note at an indepth reading of the record that the defendant could not substantiate the reasons for the summary dismissal of the claimants coupled with the fact that they were not given fair hearing, thereby breaching the rules of natural justice. Claimants were neither issued any query nor were they accorded a right to be heard but were summarily dismissed from the employment of the defendant. I observed also that the 7th, 12th, 14th and 20th claimants were initially given a letter of termination of employment dated 17th January, 2013, and possibly after the defendant discovered that they had summarily dismissed them earlier on 15th January, gave them an unsigned letter of summary dismissal. All the other claimants were given unsigned letters of summary dismissal, i.e. exhibits SD22 and SD23 respectively. This evidently show the confused and inconsistent state of the defendant, who was determined to do away with the services of its employees at all cost by deploying all its arsenals against them. A stance I liken to that of Shylock, the rich merchant in the Shakespeare text titled ''The Merchants Of Vernice''; who insisted in taking his pound of flesh at all cost. What more is the letter of indefinite suspension and summary dismissal letters issued to the 12th claimant by the defendant, while the letter of indefinite suspension was dated 22nd November, 2012, the letter of summary dismissal was dated 1st December, 2010. This is an obvious state of confusion and ineptitude of the defendant, wobbling up the procedure of termination/ dismissal . The correct and known position of law is that an employee as a disciplinary measure may be suspended by his employer, pending investigation into any case of misconduct, after which he might be dismissed or recalled. The defendant in this case did the opposite by giving the 12th claimant a dismissal letter first before placing him on suspension. It is most unfortunate that the 12th claimant did not make any claim in this regard, and courts are not like a Halloween who goes about giving sweets and gifts to people, hence I cannot award any relief not sought. Now, back to the letters of dismissal issued to the claimants without a signature. An unsigned document in the eye of the law is worthless and likens to an ordinary piece of paper. It has no evidential value and thus should be discountenanced with. See the case of MBANG V GUARDIAN NEWSPAPERS & ANOR [2010]. LPELR, 4479.CA. It was decided in this case that an unsigned document is incapable of being used to resolve a dispute in a case. The same treatment is given to all the unsigned letters of summary dismissal issued by the defendant to the claimants. Accordingly, exhibits SD23 issued by the defendant to all the claimants are worthless piece of papers that are void of any weight and thus discountenanced with and expunged from the record. The import of this taken together with the fact that the claimants were not given fair hearing before the purported summary dismissal, is that the summary dismissal of the claimants by the defendant was wrongful, unlawful and thus null and void. I resolve this issue in favour of the claimants. I so hold. The direct implication of the above decision of this Court is that the claimants were never summarily dismissed by the defendant rather their employment were constructively terminated. The claimants are therefore entitled to damages which is the amount of notice they were supposed to have been given. That in this case is one month notice or a month salary in lieu of notice plus any other terminal benefits each of the claimants is entitled to. Reliance is placed on exhibit AA1. On issue four, it is the contention of 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 12th claimants that they are entitled to gratuities in the sum of N2,125,200.00 (Two Million One Hundred and Twenty Five Thousand, Two Hundred Naira) from the defendant. The defendant neither traverse nor challenged this averment but made submissions in his final written address where it stated that exhibits SD1, SD2, SD3 and SD12 are the documents that set out the contractual obligations of the Claimants and the Defendant from the Claimants' respective dates of employment to the year 2009, counsel continued that it is logical to infer that any right conferred by exhibit AAI from the date of its introduction in 2009 takes effect from 2009 and the claimants erroneously calculated the 5 years from the year 2007. That the accrued years of service prior to 2009, are not to be considered in the consideration of claimants' entitlements. Defence posited that from 2009 to 2013 when claimants' were dismissed from the employment of the defendant equals four years which is less than the requirement for the claim of entitlement. It is the law that a counsel’s address no matter how erudite he is, cannot be substituted for and cannot take the place of pleadings and evidence in support of same. The case of AKIBU V RACE AUTO SUPPLY CO [2000] 14 NWLR (PT.686) 190, is apt on this issue. I am aware of the long settled position of the law, which is to the effect that where the conditions of service applicable at the time of appointment had in the meantime been amended or replaced, or new ones introduced ( as is in this case), the relevant conditions of service is the one that is applicable at the time of termination of appointment. The court in E.C.W.A. V. DELE [2004] 10 FWLR (PT. 230) 297; held further that to hold that it is the one applicable at the time of appointment will mean that if the amended one introduces benefits such as improved conditions of service, which ought to be the case, the employee who was employed before it comes into effect will not take the benefit of the same will be unconscionable. It is equally a basic principle of law that where conditions of service exist between an employer and an employee, the provisions contained therein are binding on them. Any disciplinary action taken by the employer against the employee must be in accordance with the laid down express procedure as provided by the conditions of service and not outside of it. The case of DORNIER AVIATION NIG.LTD V. OLUWADARE [2007] 7 NWLR (PT. 1033) 336, is in tune with this. Whilst placing heavy reliance on the case of E.C.W.A. V. DELE, Supra, I find that exhibit AA1 is applicable to the claimants as part of their condition of service from their first date of appointment up to the date their employment was terminated. I must not forget to make a brief comment on the submission of the learned defence counsel as regards the words ' copy right reserve 2009' inscribed on the Handbook exhibit AA1; it is the argument of counsel that those words means that the handbook commencement date is 2009. I beg to strongly disagree with counsel's argument, and states that under the copy rights Act, the writer of a book reserves the right to it, and that no portion or part of same can be reproduced without the express permission or consent of the author. That does not affect the rights of parties contained therein. In other words exhibit AA1 irrespective of the 2009 date or clause 9.1 there on, it does not affect the rights of all the claimants who were given the said handbook willingly by the defendant. Both parties remain bound by its content and no portion of it can be amended, deleted or reproduced, waived or cancelled without the combine agreement/consent of all the parties. An employer/employee relationship is a common law relationship which assumes equality between the contracting parties. To say that the defendant single handedly can waive or alter or remove any of the clause in exhibit AA1, places the defendant in a superior position and having an upper hand above the claimants, by exerting its powers to do and undo is an action regarded as an unfair labour practice, which is internationally frown at under the ILO rules. Clause 9.1 of exhibit AA1, is oppressive and thus discountenanced with. I so find and hold. By Exhibits SD1, SD2,SD3 and SD12 claimants employment’s letter reveals that the 1st claimant was employed on the 1st of July, 2007 with a basic salary of N22,750. The 2nd claimant was employed on 1st of July, 2007 with a basic salary of N18,865.00. The 3rd claimant was employed on the 2nd of October, 2007 with a basic salary of N10,500.00. The 12th claimant was employed on 4th of September, 2007 a basic salary of N20,020. Now, Exhibit AA1, paragraph 2.3 under the heading Termination; provides that the defendant shall give a staff whose employment is terminated one month notice or a month salary in lieu of notice and by paragraph 3.7.2 an employee is entitled to gratuity as follows: “to qualify for gratuity an employee must have remained in I.O’S full time employment for a continuous period of at least five (5) complete years. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 12th claimants worked with the defendant from 25th July, 2007, 3rd September, 2007 and 2nd October, 2007 till January, 2013. It thus means that they were in the defendant's employment for 5 years and 6 months, 5 years and 6 months, 5 years and three months, 5 years and 4 months. By exhibit AA1, i.e. the handbook, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 12th claimants having worked for the defendant more than 5 years each, their gratuity shall be calculated by multiplying their one month basic salary by 24 months.( See clause 3.7.3 of exhibit AA1). Thus N22,750 x 24 months, will give a total sum of = N546,000 as gratuity due to the 1st claimant, N18,865 x 24 months= 452,760 as gratuity due to the 2nd claimant, N10,500 x 24 months given the sum of N252,000 is due to the 3rd claimant and N20,020 x 24 months= N480,480.00 for the 12th claimant. I so find and hold. It is also the contention of the claimants that the defendant should disclose to them the appointed Pension Manager where their deducted pension were remitted to. The defendants on the other hand admitted to deducting the claimants’ salary but stated that it remitted same in the Pension Fund Managers appointed by the claimants with the exception of the 11th claimant to whom his pension is still with the defendant. Defendant substantiated this assertion in evidence by exhibitsAA5 that is the letters dated 10th of May, 2013 and 7th of May, 2014, which evinced the remittances done by the defendant to the claimants PFA i.e. STANBIC IBTC, Pension Managers. The defendant did not however, show any evidence that it remitted the pension of the 20th claimant to ARM Pension Managers. Thus I find that the defendant are not liable to the claimants with respect to their pension. The defendant admitted that it did not remit any pension entitlement of the 11th and 21st claimants to any PFA, consequently, the defendant is ordered to pay to both the 11th and 21st claimants monies deducted from their salaries as pensions forthwith. Defendant already admitted owing the 11th claimant Pension fund of N26,460.00. That shall be paid to him. The claimants claim for their salary in lieu of notice. Having held above that the dismissal of the 1st -21st claimants is wrongful, the measure of damages in master and servant relationship is the amount the employee could have been lawfully entitled to before his employment brought to an end or determined. SEE ACB LTD V UFONDU [1997] 10 NWLR (PT 523) 169 CA; MR GABRIEL OLOGUN V BENAIZ HEALTH CARE LIMITED UNREPORTED SUIT NO NICN/LA/379/2013 DELIVERED ON THE 6TH OF NOVEMBER, 2014. I find and hold that the 1st -21st claimants are entitled to one month salary in lieu of the period of notice in the sum of N65,000.00, N59,888.89, N42,272.73, N46,200.00, N39,000.00, N44,386.36, N36,000.00, N28,000.00, N28,000.00, N28,000.00 N33,600.00, N57,200.00, N43,800.00, N47,300.00 N34,800, N33,600.00, N32,386.36, N42,893.36, N42,000.00, N34,172.73 of the 1st – 20th claimants and the sum of N35,734.27 being the 21st claimant’s one month salary in lieu of notice. Claimants are claiming their prorated January salary; the defendant did not controvert or challenged this claim, it is a fact that the claimants worked for the defendant up till the 15th January 2013 when their employment was constructively terminated by the defendant, they are accordingly entitled to be paid their prorated January salary. I so hold. For clarity the entitlement of each claimant is outlined in the table below. CLAIMANT ENTITLEMENTS N TOTAL 1st 1 month salary in lieu of notice/ gratuity/ January prorated salary N65,000+N546,000+N32,500 N643,500. 2nd 1 month salary in lieu of notice/ gratuity/ January prorated salary N59,888.89+N452,760+ N29,944.445 N539,593.335 3rd 1 month salary in lieu of notice/ gratuity/ January prorated salary N42,272.73 +N252,000.00 + N21,136.365 N315,409.095 4th 1month salary in lieu of notice/ January prorated salary N46,200 + N23,100 N69,300 5th 1month salary in lieu of notice/January prorated salary N39,000 + N19,500 N58,500 6th 1month salary in lieu of notice/ January prorated salary N44,386.36 + N22,193.18 N66,579.54 7th 1month salary in lieu of notice/ January prorated salary N36,000 + N18,000 N54,000 8th 1month salary in lieu of notice/ January prorated salary N28,000 + 14,000 N42,000 9th 1month salary in lieu of notice/ January prorated salary N28,000 + N14,000 N42,000 10th 1month salary in lieu of notice/ January prorated salary N28,000 + N14,000 N42,000 11th 1month salary in lieu of notice/ January prorated salary N33,600 + N16,800 N50,400 12th 1month salary in lieu of notice/ gratuity/ January prorated salary N57,200 +N480,480+ N28,600 N566,280 13th 1month salary in lieu of notice/ January prorated salary N43,800 + N21,900 N65,700 14th 1month salary in lieu of notice/ January prorated salary N47,300 + N23,650 N70,950 15th 1month salary in lieu of notice/ January prorated salary N34,800 + N17400 N52,200 16 1month salary in lieu of notice/ January prorated salary N33,600 +N16,800 N50,400 17 1month salary in lieu of notice/ January prorated salary N32,386.36 + N16,193.18 N48,579.54 18 1month salary in lieu of notice/ January prorated salary N42,893.36 + N21,446.68 N64,340.04 19 1month salary in lieu of notice/ January prorated salary N42,000 +N21,000 N63,000 20 1month salary in lieu of notice/ January prorated salary N34,172.73 + N17,086 N51,258.73 21 1month salary in lieu of notice/ January prorated salary N35,734.27 + 17,867.135 N53,601.405 It is in addition to the above and for avoidance of doubt, that I make the following declarations and orders; 1. The summary dismissal of the 1st -21st claimants is wrongful, illegal null and void. 2. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 12th claimants are entitled to gratuities in the sum of N546,000, N452,760, N252,000, N480,480.00. 3. That the defendant is not liable to pay the pension of the claimants except the 10th, 11th and 21st claimants as same is remitted to claimants Pension Fund Manager. 4. The defendant shall pay monies deducted as pensions from the salaries of the 10th, 11th and 21st claimants to them personally in the absence of any PFA. 5. That the 1st -21st claimants are entitled to one month salary in lieu of notice as stated supra in this judgment. 6. The claimants are entitle to their prorated January salary as stated supra. 7. I award the cost of N20,000 each as cost to the claimants. 8. All sums awarded in this judgment shall be paid to the claimants within 30 days of this judgment failing which a 21% interest per annum shall accrue. Judgment accordingly entered. HON. JUSTICE OYEWUMI OYEBIOLA.O JUDGE.