MOHAMMED ALHASSAN DANTATA vs. KENT HOUSE SECURITY [2011]DLNLC7687

Date	2011-03-30
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2011]DLNLC7687

[2011]DLNLC7687
																																						<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" >MOHAMMED
ALHASSAN DANTATA<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>KENT HOUSE
SECURITY<o:p></o:p>[NLC]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;mso-pagination:none;
border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">Our Ref: NLC/C-462/2010/2011/90&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: 30TH MARCH, 2011<o:p></o:p>

</div>FOR THE COMMISSON: <o:p></o:p>OPANIN OBENG-FOSU (MEMBER NLC)<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

DECISION<o:p></o:p>

</div>Considering the Petition
filed by Mohammed Alhassan Dantata (hereinafter called the Petitioner) against
Kent House Security. (hereinafter called the Respondent) on June 18, 2010 and
the Respondent's submissions of July 28, 2010; <o:p></o:p>Considering Sections 138
and 139 of the Labour Act, 2003 (Act
651) on the functions and powers of the National Labour Commission; <o:p></o:p>Having examined the
written submissions of the Petitioner and the Respondent and allowed the two
parties to meet with the Commission on this matter in hearings; <o:p></o:p>The facts of the case
and the pleadings may be summed up as follows: <o:p></o:p>The Petitioner submits
that: <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:13.4pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:
0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes">A. He was employed by Kent House Security on March 24, 2010 and was given uniform and deployed to
his station that very day. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:11.25pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:
0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes">B. One day while on his
way to the workplace at Tigo, he had accident which led to a deep cut on his
head. He quickly informed his Boss Mr. Chris who informed him to go to the
hospital. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:9.8pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes">C. That on May 19, 2010,
the zonal commander asked him to go home and the operations Manager told him
they would pay him off. <o:p></o:p>The Respondent submitted
as follows: <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:11.5pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:
0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes">D. That, the petitioner was employed on May 24, 2010 and was on probation when he went on AWOL (absent
without official leave). <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:11.5pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:
0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes">E. That, the petitioner did not submit the
guarantor's form which was very important to them. <o:p></o:p>F. That, the petitioner
did not sustain the injury while on duty but rather sustained it while off duty. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:10.05pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:
0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes">G. That, the Operations
Manager gave him two days pass to duty, to nurse his wounds after which the
petitioner started absenting himself. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:11.75pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:
0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes">H. Thai, the petitioner did not need to the
numerous verbal cautions from the Zonal Commander to report for work. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:12.25pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:
0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes">I. That, the petitioners appointment was
terminated in accordance with article 132 of their infraction code in the
Condition of</main>