The National Industrial Court (NIC) has ordered BUA Flour Mills, to pay terminal benefits to 11 of its disengaged personnel.
Delivering judgment, Justice Ebeye Isele, ordered that five of the claimants, Aliyu Kabara, Idris Isah, Abdullahi Mohammed, Mohammed Abdullahi and Ahmed Mohammed, should be paid a total sum of N1.4 million, N261,360,
N216,000, N261,000 and N522,720 respectively, as terminal benefits.
The court also ordered the defendant to pay the remaining six claimants, Rabiu Hamisu, Lawan Sanusi, Salisu Garba, Valentine Watsav, Yusuf Usman and Augustine Clement, who had spent less than fives years in its employment one month’s salary in lieu of notice.
NIC emphasised that all the payment must be done within one month of delivery of the judgment.
The court, in addition however, held that the termination of the claimants’ appointments remained valid in line with the terms and conditions that governed their employment.
But the claimants had argued that the termination of their appointments did not conform with the company’s staff manual.
They also claimed that they were yet to receive any terminal benefits from BUA since March 5, 2013, when their appointments were terminated.
The claimants stated that by the provisions of the company’s staff manual, they were entitled to terminal, or end of service benefits, in line with their respective years of service.
They maintained that the terminal benefits calculated against their respective names were inaccurate, and did not reflect their correct entitlements.
The claimants in turn prayed the court to grant the reliefs sought.
In defence, the firm argued that the appointments of the plaintiffs were duly terminated in line with the terms and conditions governing their employments.
The firm further stated that the claimants were laid off because their services were no longer required, and that the firm was yet to pay their terminal benefits because they all rejected the computations made according to the staff manual.
The defendant therefore, urged the court to dismiss the suit in its entirety.
The court on its part, after evaluation of the parties’ submissions, held that the defendant acted according to the terms and conditions of the claimants’ employment letters in terminating their appointments.
The court further held that the claimants’ claims, as computed by them, were not founded on the clear provisions of the staff manual.
(NAN)
