NATIONAL LABOUR COMMISSION vs. HARLEQUIN INTERNATIONAL (GH) LTD. [2009]DLHC4336

Date	2009-07-22
Suit No.	SUIT NO. INDL.M/03/09
Citation No.	[2009]DLHC4336

KWABENA ASUMAN-ADU

WILLIAM KOB LUMOR (ESQ.) FOR THE APPLICANT

ISAAC OSEI BONSU (ESQ.) FOR THE RESPONDENT

[2009]DLHC4336
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" ><a name="OLE_LINK1">NATIONAL LABOUR COMMISSION<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>HARLEQUIN
INTERNATIONAL (GH) LTD.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT (INDUSTRIAL/LABOUR DIVISION),
ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

SUIT NO.
INDL.M/03/09&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 22ND JULY, 2009<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>WILLIAM KOB LUMOR (ESQ.) FOR THE
APPLICANT <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

ISAAC
OSEI BONSU (ESQ.) FOR THE RESPONDENT <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

KWABENA
ASUMAN-ADU, JUSTICE
OF THE HIGH COURT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>This ruling
is in respect of an application for the enforcement of the decision of the applicant
against the respondent filed by the applicant on 22nd May, 2009.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In an
Affidavit in Support of the said application, the applicant avers that on 24th
November, 2008 one Lee Martin Baker (hereinafter referred to as the
petitioner), a former employee of the respondent company filed a petition with
it against the respondent for wrongful termination of his employment. The
applicant found that the notice of termination of employment served on the
petitioner was in breach of clause 13.2 of the contract of employment signed
between the two parties attached as Exhibit LB1. So on 27th
November, 2008 the applicant having listened to the parties involved ruled in
favour of the petitioner.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>According to
the applicant, the notice of the termination of employment purported to have
been served by the respondent on 15th October, 2008 attached as
Exhibit LB4 cannot be termed as notice because it was drawing petitioner’s
attention to poor performance. Meanwhile, the purported termination was in
respect of gross misconduct.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The applicant
goes on to aver that the said notice and the date of termination is less than
three&nbsp; (3) months as required under the
agreement signed between the two parties.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The applicant
avers that the monthly salary of the petitioner was £3000 per month out of
which he was paid allowance of £800 in Ghana and £2,200 transferred into his
account at the Barclays Bank in Great Britain. It supported this assertion with
Exhibits LB 6-14 to LB14<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
respondent opposed the application in an Affidavit in Opposition filed on 8th
June, 2009. It avers that the termination of the petitioner’s employment is not
in breach of the contract of employment. It goes on to aver that petitioner’s
salary was as stated in clause 4.1 of Exhibit LB1. His salary was £9,600 per
year.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
respondent avers that by paragraphs 9 and 10 of its Affidavit in opposition,
the applicant is attempting to import unknown terms into the said Exhibit LB1
and to mislead this court into making an order for the payment of monies which
are not supported by the contract of employment that formed the basis of the
applicant’s decision.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It goes on to
aver that Exhibits LB6-14 to LB14 were never before the applicant during the
hearing of the petition by the applicant, so they must be expunged as
inadmissible. In any case, the amount stated on the said exhibits does not form
part of the petitioner’s salary.<o:p></o:p>