The National Industrial Court, on Wednesday dismissed an unlawful dismissal claim against Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc, by its former staff member, Adeleye Adedayo, for lacking in merit.
Delivering judgment, Justice Sanusi Kado, dismissed the suit in its entirety and held that the claimant’s decision not to“ honour the defendant’s invitation to appear before a disciplinary committee proved that he had no answers to the accusation as contained in the letter of invitation he got from the defendant”.
The court in addition stated that the claimant therefore could not complain of not been accorded fair hearing.
In addition, Kado held that no law prohibits an employer from taking disciplinary action against its employee even while the employee is standing trial for a criminal offence.
From facts, the claimant- had submitted that his employment with the bank was illegally terminated on an allegation of misconduct which he denied.
He stated that during the 10 years in the service of the bank, he was never queried nor suspended for any offence or misconduct.
The defendant in its reply submitted that the claimant failed to honour the invitation to explain his role regarding allegations of the misconduct leveled against him.
The defence equally stated that rather than the claimant honouring the defendant’s invitation, his solicitors informed the bank that the claimant was not available.
The defence counsel, Kehinde Aina, argued that the claimant did not give any cogent evidence before the court to entitle him to the grant of the reliefs sought and therefore urged the court to dismiss the case.
In opposition, the claimant’s counsel, Lawrence Alabi, submitted that a court of competent jurisdiction did not indict his client and as such his dismissal by the defendant based on the same allegation was wrongful, unwarranted, mischievous and equally urged the court to so hold.
The court however, after the evaluation of the submissions of both parties, held that the claimant and his counsel were wrong to insist on first facing criminal trial before appearing before a disciplinary committee.
Kado added that the claimant’s inability to show that the date he was to appear before the defendant’s disciplinary committee coincided with the date he was to attend his criminal trial was detrimental to his case.
He said that the claimant counsel’s advice could not serve as the position of the law, as it remained an advice until sanctioned by law or affirmed by decision of a competent court. (NAN)
DISCLAIMER
The OPINION / COLUMN is authored by independent contributors to the National Accord Newspaper. While contributors adhere to our editorial guidelines, they are not employed by the National Accord Newspaper. The perspectives and opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author and do not represent the views of the National Accord Newspaper or its staff.
Leave a Reply