STEPHEN KOFI TSAGLI vs. SUPER LOCK TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED [2013]DLNLC8383

Date	2013-03-03
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2013]DLNLC8383

[2013]DLNLC8383
																																						<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>SUPER LOCK TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED<o:p></o:p>[NLC]<o:p></o:p><div style="font-size: medium; border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom: 1.5pt solid windowtext; padding: 31pt 31pt 1pt;">Our Ref: NLC/C-419/2010/2013/39R&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 3RD MARCH, 2013<o:p></o:p></div>FOR THE COMMISSON:<o:p></o:p>OPANIN OBENG-FOSU (MEMBER NLC)<o:p></o:p><div style="font-size: medium; border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom: 1.5pt solid windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">DECISION &nbsp;<o:p></o:p></div>Facts<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Complainant lodged his complaint at the Commission on May 31, 2010, that he was engaged as a Labourer by Amandi, a subsidiary of Superlock Technologies Limited in August 2009.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>That in February 2010, he sustained injury during and in the course of performing his duty when cement block fell on his leg from a height of about fifteen (15) feet.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>As a result of this injury, complainant is alleging that he can no longer perform his mandated duties. That, the company has refused to comply with the recommendations of the attending medical doctor. The attending medical doctor's assessment of his degree of injury was that the symptoms showing did not warrant incapacitation, however, recommended that he should be declared invalid to work.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>He is seeking payment of wages as his reliefs.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The respondent in reply to the complainant's complaint intimated that Mr. Stephen Tsagli was employed on September 30, 2009, by Amandi investment Ltd, a sister company of Superlock Technologies Limited as a casual Labourer.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>That, complainant was a daily wage earner and that his daily wage was GH¢ 6.00 and this amount was accumulated and paid weekly as was mutually agreed by both parties.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>That on February 01, 2010 complainant got injured and all medical bills borne by the employer for the period he was undertaking medical treatment. That, from February 01, 2010 to March 22, 2010 when complainant was undergoing treatment his wages for the period was paid in full.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Subsequent to this response the Commission invited both parties for hearing for the Commission to adduce evidence for determination of this case. The Commission invited parties for hearing on three different occasions and respondent failed to honour any of these invitations. The Commission was left with no other option than to hear the complainant on oath and went ahead to make a decision on the case.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>DECISION<o:p></o:p>