Western Steel Works Ltd. & Anor. V. Iron & Steel Workers Union Of Nigeria & Anor (1987)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

KARIBI-WHYTE, J.S.C.

The only issues argued in this action before Oladipo Williams, J. of the Lagos State High Court relate to the validity of the writ of summons and the jurisdiction of High Court of Lagos State with respect to the subject matter of the action. It seems to me clear from the grounds of appeal before this court that these are the same issues which the appellant is asking this Court to decide.

Before going into the issues, it is pertinent to observe that the subject matter of the action is still outstanding. The decision appealed against in this Court emanated from a ruling of the High Court on appeal to the Court of Appeal whether the writ of summons was competent. and/or whether the Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter.

I think it is necessary for a clear understanding of the issues to state even in outline the history of the litigation now before this Court. The appeal before us is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal. Setting aside the ruling of the High Court which declined the exercise of its jurisdiction in respect of the subject matter of the action, and held that by virtue of Sections 14 and 15 of the Trade Disputes Act, 1976 jurisdiction was vested exclusively in the National Industrial Court.

The facts relied upon by both parties are as set out in the statement of claim of the Plaintiffs. Appellants/Defendants have not filed their statement of defence. The case of the Plaintiffs/Respondents is that they represent the entire members of staff who are employees of the 1st Appellant/Defendant. The 2nd Appellant is the Chairman and Managing Director of the 1st Appellant company.

Plaintiffs/Respondents alleged that the employees of the 1st Appellant company and represented by the Plaintiffs were on the 27th September, 1982 locked out and had been laid off at different times by the 1st Appellant Company (See paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Statement of Claim). Prior to 1982, and on the 16th April, 1981, Representatives of 1st Plaintiffs members and of 1st Defendants/Appellants Union members had entered into an agreement with respect to end of service benefits.

Again, the parties had as between them two existing Collective Agreements in 1979 and 1982 providing for Redundancy Benefit and end of Service Benefits. 1st Appellant in January, 1982, informed Respondents of its plan to lay-off employees owing to shortage of raw materials for production.

In 1982 by several letters Appellants also gave notice to the employees, now represented by Respondents, of the intention to lay them off. The method adopted by the 1st Appellant to do so was communicated in its letter dated 27th July, 1982. On the 31st August, 1982, 2nd Appellant told all the employees of the 1st Appellant Company, represented by the Respondents, that because the possibility of obtaining raw materials was remote, all the employees should leave his employment without redundancy or any other benefits being paid to them. 2nd Appellant refused to honour the agreement to declare the employees redundant, and accordingly 1st and 2nd Respondents declared a trade dispute. The Federal Ministry of Labour intervened on the 13th September, 1982. On the strength of this intervention the 1st Defendant/ Appellant on the 17th September, 1982 entered into an agreement with the Respondents and officials of the Federal Ministry of Labour to bring raw materials within 30 days. 2nd Defendant/Appellant did not honour the terms of this Agreement and on the 27th September, 1982 in breach of the Agreement of the 17th September, 1982 locked out and barred all the employees from entering the premises of the 1st Appellant Company.

The Plaintiffs/Respondents therefore contend that the laying-off and the lock-out of the employees of the 1st Defendant company by the 2nd Defendant was illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Labour Act 1974 and the Trade Disputes Act 1976 respectively. Accordingly on the 22nd December, 1982, an action was brought in the Lagos State High Court, Ikeja, claiming as follows:

INDORSEMENTS

“THE PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM JOINTLY AND/OR SEVERALLY AGAINST:

1. THE 1ST DEFENDANT IS FOR:

(a) A DECLARATION that the laying off from February to July 1982 by the 1st Defendant of the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs Union Members employed by the 1st Defendant and numbering about 250 is illegal, wrongful, null and void as being contrary to the Provisions of the Labour Act 1974.

(b) A DECLARATION that the lock out physically and by oral instruction by the 1st Defendant on 31st August, 1982 of the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs’ Union members employed by the 1st Defendant aforesaid is illegal, null and void as being contrary to both the Labour Act 1974 and the terms and conditions governing the said employment.

(c) A DECLARATION that the employees aforesaid are still in the 1st Defendant’s employment.