LABOUR COMMISSION vs. CROCODILE MATCHET [2011]DLSC2641

Date	2011-06-22
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/52/2011
Citation No.	[2011]DLSC2641

ATUGUBA JSC. (PRESIDING)

ANSAH JSC

OWUSU (MS) JSC

GBADEGBE JSC

AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) JSC

KWESI DANSO-ACHEAMPONG FOR THE APPELLANT

OSAFO-BUABENG FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[2011]DLSC2641
																																						<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" >LABOUR COMMISSION<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>CROCODILE
MATCHET&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT, 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">

CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/52/2011 &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;&nbsp;DATE: 22ND JUNE, 2011<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>KWESI DANSO-ACHEAMPONG FOR THE
APPELLANT.<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">

OSAFO-BUABENG
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">

ATUGUBA, JSC. (PRESIDING)
ANSAH, JSC OWUSU (MS), JSC GBADEGBE, JSC AND AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS), JSC<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">

JUDGEMENT <o:p></o:p>

</div>ANSAH,&nbsp; JSC;<o:p></o:p>This
action was commenced under the Labour Act of 2003, Act 651, when on 18 August
2006, the National Labour Commission filed a motion for an order to compel
Crocodile Matchets Ghana Ltd. to comply with its orders made on 20th
April 2006. The action was founded on section 172 of the Labour Act of 2003,
(Act 651)<o:p></o:p>The
facts which have ended in this appeal and which are deduced from and formed the
case of the appellant Commission were that one James Agyemang Badu and five
others, who until 19-12-2005 were employees of the Crocodile Matchets Factory,
complained to the National Labour Commission of unfair and unlawful termination
of their employment. They proceeded under section 64 (1) of the Act. The
section read: <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp; 64 Remedies
for unfair termination.<o:p></o:p>(1)
A worker who claims that the employment of the worker has been unfairly
terminated by the workers employer may present a complaint to the Commission.” <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The Commission sent copies of the petition to
‘Crocodile Matchets’ for their comments, after which the parties were summoned
to the Commission for a hearing. Two persons namely, Mr. Danso-Acheampong the
deputy or vice-chairperson of the Commission and Opanin Obeng Fosu both
representing the Commission, sat to hear the petition, after which they found
the termination of appointments of the five employees to have been unfair and
wrongful and made some consequential orders against the Company. The Company
refused to comply with them thus prompting the National Labor Commission,
acting under Section 172 of the Labor Act, 2003 (Act 651) to file an
application before the High Court, Tema, for the Company to enforce its orders.
The said section provided that:<o:p></o:p>“172.
Enforcement of orders of the Commission.<o:p></o:p>Where
a person fails or refuses to comply with a direction or an order issued by the
Commission under this Act, the Commission shall make an application to the High
Court for an order to compel that person to comply with the direction or
order.” <o:p></o:p>The
High Court, Tema, coram Nana Gyamera Tawia, granted the application and
proceeded to order the Company to comply with the orders made by the Commission,
whereupon the Company appealed to the Court of Appeal which set aside the
decision by the High Court founded as it were on the proceedings and decision
of the Commission on 9th July 2009.<o:p></o:p>The
Commission was dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal and
appealed to this court seeking an order for the Company to comply with its
decision. The National Labour Commission is hereafter called the appellant and
Crocodile Matchets, the respondent. <o:p></o:p>The
grounds of Appeal before us were that:<o:p></o:p>“1
The Court of Appeal erred when it held that a committee of two Commissioners
that determined the petition brought against Crocodile Matchets (GH) Ltd under
Section 141 (1) and (2) of Act 651 could not have represented the Appellant
Commission because the two did not form a quorum of 5 as mandated under Section
140 (3) of Act 651.<o:p></o:p>2
That the Court of Appeal erred when it doubted the competency of the Appellant
to delegate its judicial function notwithstanding the express provision for
delegation under Section 141 (2) of Act 651.<o:p></o:p>