EBENEZER KWADJO vs. CARPOOL LIMITED [2016]DLNLC7569

Date	2016-12-29
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2016]DLNLC7569

[2016]DLNLC7569
																																						<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" >EBENEZER
KWADJO<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>CARPOOL
LIMITED<o:p></o:p>[NLC]<o:p></o:p>OUR REF: NLC/C-425/016/14L&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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:
29TH DECEMBER 2016<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">

</div>FOR
THE COMMISSION:<o:p></o:p>CHARLES A. BAWADUAH (EXECUTIVE SECRETARY)<o:p></o:p>DECISION<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">

</div>Facts:<o:p></o:p>On the 16th August, 2016, Ebenezer Kwadjo (hereinafter called
"the Complainant”) lodged a complaint of termination at the National
Labour Commission against Carpool limited (hereinafter called “the
Respondent").<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Complainant's submissions:<o:p></o:p>The Complainant submitted that he was employed as a
Security Officer in the Respondent Company and worked for three years without
appointment letter.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Complainant also submitted that the Respondent asked him to
submit fresh application after he had worked for three years. He stated that he
asked about his SSNIT contribution for the three years but, the Respondent did
not give any meaningful answer.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Complainant also submitted that when he reported to work the
next day, the Respondent indicated that the Company's Lawyers advised that his
appointment should be terminated because, he appeared dangerous so, he was laid
off. He added that the Respondent did not abide by a promise to pay him three
months salaries.<o:p></o:p>The Complainant in consequence, wants the following:<o:p></o:p><ol style="margin-top:0cm" start="1" type="a">
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; text-align: justify; line-height: normal; border: none;">Payment of his SSNIT
 Contribution.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; text-align: justify; line-height: normal; border: none;">Compensation for
 unfair termination.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>C. Workmen's compensation.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Commission in letters dated 19th August, 2016 and 20th
September, 2016, forwarded the complaint to the Respondent for his response in
accordance with L.I. 1822. The Respondent failed to respond to the letters.<o:p></o:p>In accordance with Regulation 7(2) of L.I. 1822 which states inter
alia "where a party to a disputes fails to respond to the request of the
Commission within the stipulated period of fourteen working days, the
Commission shall send a final notice to the party concerned to respond within a
further seven working days after which the Commission shall proceed to
determine the case;<o:p></o:p>The Commission upon exhausting Regulation 7(2) of
L.I. 1822 and upon careful study of the complaint before it decides as follows:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>