NATIONAL LABOUR COMMISSION vs. GHANA POSTAL COMPANY LTD [2011]DLHC4381

Date	2011-04-08
Suit No.	SUIT NO. INDL.3/11
Citation No.	[2011]DLHC4381

KWABENA ASUMAN-ADU

MR. C. S. SACKEY FOR THE APPLICANT

MR. CHARLES ANDOH FOR THE RESPONDENT

[2011]DLHC4381
																																						<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>GHANA POSTAL COMPANY 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.3/11&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: 8TH APRIL, 2011<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>MR. C.
S. SACKEY 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">

</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">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>One Prince Anafi Simpeh (hereinafter referred to as
“the Petitioner”) was a Transport Officer of the Respondent/company who was
dismissed from its employment. He as a result petitioned the Applicant against
the Respondent for unlawful dismissal and without any benefit. He, therefore,
pleaded for the payment of his terminal benefit. The Applicant, sent a copy of
the petition to the Respondent and requested it to submit its response which it
obliged. The Applicant went into the petition, after which it ordered the
Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner as an Assistant Transport Officer with
effect from 26th July, 2006. The Respondent has failed to comply
with the order of the Applicant. The Applicant has as a result brought this
application to this Court for the enforcement of its order under Order 19 rule 1 (2) of CI 47 and Section 172 of the Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651) which the
Respondent has opposed. So this ruling is in respect of the said application. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The case for the Applicant is that the Petitioner
was put before a Board of Enquiry set up by the Respondent to go into an
allegation made against him by a private security personnel working for the
Respondent. The Board of Enquiry went into the allegation and submitted its
report which was based on three counts as follows:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;
line-height:115%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">(a)&nbsp;&nbsp;
Stealing
of property in the care, control, custody, possession, trust, etc. of the
company contrary to Article 34 (3c) of the 2004/2005 CBA.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;
line-height:115%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">(b)&nbsp;&nbsp;
Negligence
contrary to Article 34 (3c) of the 2004/2005 CBA.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;
line-height:115%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">(c)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Dereliction
of duty contrary to Article 34 (3c) of the 2004/2005 CBA.<o:p></o:p>The Board of Enquiry failed to establish any
liability or guilt of the Petitioner on counts one and three, but on the
offence of negligence it found that the Petitioner failed to declare the items
in his vehicle to the security and therefore found him liable. The Board of
enquiry, therefore, recommended that the Petitioner be reduced in rank from
Transport Officer to Assistant Transport Officer.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Having found the Petitioner liable for negligence
the Respondent per Article 35(3) of the CBA could dismiss, terminate or reduce
in rank the Petitioner, what is not clear is who has the final say to mete out
punishment.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The </main>