NATIONAL LABOUR COMMISSION vs. FABI TIMBERS LTD. [2020]DLHC10310

Date	2020-03-04
Suit No.	SUIT NO. MSIL/0011/2019
Citation No.	[2020]DLHC10310

HER LADYSHIP ANANDA J. AIKINS (MRS).

APPLICANT REPRESENTED BY MR. LEONARD KUMANGTUM

RESPONDENT REPRESENTED BY MOHAMMED ALHASSAN

MR. YEHODA KOTEY HOLDING BRIEF FOR EFFIBA AMIHERE

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT PRESENT

AMEYAW NYAMEKYE COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT ABSENT

[2020]DLHC10310
																																						<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" >NATIONAL LABOUR COMMISSION<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>FABI TIMBERS LTD.<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:
none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT
NO. MSIL/0011/2019&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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:
4TH MARCH 2020<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>APPLICANT REPRESENTED BY MR.
LEONARD KUMANGTUM&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>RESPONDENT REPRESENTED BY
MOHAMMED ALHASSAN<o:p></o:p>MR. YEHODA KOTEY HOLDING BRIEF FOR EFFIBA AMIHERE,
COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT PRESENT<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

AMEYAW NYAMEKYE, COUNSEL FOR
RESPONDENT ABSENT<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;This
application is a request by the National Labour Commission to the Court for an
order enforcing its decision against the respondent herein and the respondent
is vehemently opposed to the present application.&nbsp; The application for enforcement was filed on
19th of July 2019 and the affidavit in opposition was filed on 19th
July 2019.&nbsp; The applicant thereafter
filed a supplementary affidavit in support of its application on the 5th
of November, 2019.<o:p></o:p>The
application was moved on 18th of November, 2019 and the counsel for
the respondent requested the Court to grant him an adjournment to another day
to enable him respond to the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant
because he (counsel for respondent) had not been served with the supplementary affidavit
that had been filed by the applicant. The counsel for the respondent however
failed to appear in Court to make his submissions despite the fact that there has
been two previous adjournments granted to enable him do so. However since his
affidavit in opposition is part of the record, the Court will take that into
consideration in this ruling.<o:p></o:p>The
record before this Court shows that the applicant received a petition dated 9th
of August 2016 from workers of an entity called F.L. Woods Company Limited which
is located in Kumasi. The said complaint was forwarded to the managing director
of F.L. Woods Company Limited but the response of the said managing director of
F.L. Woods Company Limited was not among the exhibits filed by the
applicant.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>The applicant
rather filed exhibit ‘NLC 4’ which is the response by the managing director of
Fabi Timber Limited (the respondent herein) to a petition by the workers of
Faibi Timbers. The respondent is also located in Kumasi. It appears from
exhibit ‘NLC 4’ that the managing director of the respondent&nbsp; herein informed the NLC of certain agreements
it had reached with its workforce concerning their redundancy payments and also
of the fact that&nbsp; the respondent company
had ceased operations in the year 2015.<o:p></o:p>In
also appears from exhibit ‘NLC 14’ that there was a meeting held at the
premises of the applicant where the respondent herein was ordered to pay
workers of Fabi Timbers “all amounts due them within one month with
interest and report to the commission”. This decision of the applicant is
what it is seeking to enforce against the respondent herein but the respondent
is opposed to the enforcement on the ground that not all the petitioners before
the applicant were employees of the respondent herein.<o:p></o:p>The
respondent says that out of the over 202 petitioners only 59 were its employees
and that with respect to the 59 workers virtually all their entitlements have
been paid to them. The respondent said that with the exception of the 59
employees the remaining were employees of F.L. Woods Company Limited and that
it was wrong for the applicant to impose the debt of a different company on the
respondent to pay.&nbsp; It was also the
averment of the respondent that the applicant did not calculate the exact
amounts to be paid by the respondent to the said 59 former employees. The
respondent attached two documents to its affidavit in opposition as exhibits 1
and 2.&nbsp; These exhibits are the severance
award advice slips of employees of Fabi Timbers.<o:p></o:p>The
Court has perused the affidavits of both parties and all their annexures and it
appears to the Court that there were two petitions before the applicant by workers
of Fabi Timbers and also workers of F.L. Woods Company Limited. &nbsp;Exhibit ‘NLC 1’ is the compliant/petition by
the workers of F.L. Woods Company Limited&nbsp;&nbsp;
and exhibit NLC ‘14’ is the decision of the applicant in the petition by
the workers of Fabi Timbers against the respondent herein.&nbsp; There is an exhibit ‘16’ which was filed by
the applicant as an attachment to its application for enforcement on 9th
July, 2019. This exhibit ‘16’ on its 1st page makes reference to a
hearing&nbsp; at the premises of the applicant
on the 27th&nbsp; of July 2018 and
the order the applicant gave to the respondent herein to pay all respondent’s
liabilities to its&nbsp; workers by the 27th
August, 2018.<o:p></o:p>Indeed
this first page of exhibit ‘16’ which was filed 9th July 2019 is a
letter addressed to the managing director of F</main>