STEPHEN KOFI TSAGLI vs. SUPERLOCK TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED [2011]DLNLC7701

Date	2011-03-14
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2011]DLNLC7701

[2011]DLNLC7701
																																						<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" >STEPHEN KOFI
TSAGLI<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>SUPERLOCK
TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED<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-419/2010/66J&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; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 14TH MARCH, 2011<o:p></o:p>

</div>FOR THE COMMISSON: <o:p></o:p>DENNIS VORMAWOR (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>FACTS OF THE CASE <o:p></o:p>On 31st May 2010, Mr.
Stephen Kofi Tsagli lodged a petition with the National Labour Commission. He alleged that he was employed in August 2009 by
Superlock Technologies Limited as a Labourer. In February 2010 while performing his duties,
an eight (8) inches block fell from a height of about fifteen (15) feet on his right leg. He was referred to a company doctor for
treatment. After the initial treatment, the pains
continued and he was referred to the doctor for a review. <o:p></o:p>In a written response,
Superlock Technologies stated that Mr. Stephen Tsagli was employed as a casual
labourer in October 2009. According to them, on 1st February 2009, Mr. Tsagli
was injured in the course of his work when a cement block fell on his leg. He was rushed to the hospital for medical attention.
According to them Mr. Tsagli was paid for 7
weeks that he was under medical
treatment. The company further stated that sometime in April, Mr. Tsagli
complained of pains in both legs and so he was referred to the company's doctor
for assessment and advice. The company attached a letter dated 22nd April 2010
from Dr. J.J. Lamptey of Valley View Clinic to their response. In that letter, Dr. J.J. Lamptey stated among other things as follows;
"Even though these symptoms do not warrant incapacitation, he is psychologically
motivated with these symptoms that will definitely affect his performance
at home negatively. In view of <o:p></o:p>these factors, I will
recommend that it is better to invalidate him and work out some
compensation for him". <o:p></o:p>Based on the response
from the company, the Commission invited both parties for a hearing on 31st
August 2010. The petitioner was present but respondent
failed to attend. The hearing was therefore rescheduled for 9th
November 2010. This time too the respondent failed to attend the hearing. On 9th November 2010, the Commission wrote to
respondent to report the industrial injury to the Chief Labour Officer in
compliance <o:p></o:p>with the Workmen's Compensation Law, 1987 PNDC
Law 187. Respondent was directed to bring the outcome
of the report from the Chief Labour Officer to a hearing rescheduled for 7th
December, 2010. <o:p></o:p>