2019
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellant, a former chief clerk at Ahantaman Rural Bank, was terminated for misconduct and subsequently petitioned the National Labour Commission (NLC), which ruled in his favor and awarded modest compensation. Dissatisfied, he appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed his appeal on jurisdictional and procedural grounds. Upon further appeal to the Supreme Court, it was held that while the Court of Appeal did have jurisdiction over NLC decisions, the appellant's appeal was untimely and improperly filed without required permissions, rendering it void.
JUDGEMENT
AMEGATCHER, JSC:-
It is not usual for labour petitions determined by the National Labour Commission (hereafter referred to as NLC) in favour of a petitioner to end up at the instance of the victorious party, first on appeal to the Court of Appeal and then to the apex court of the land. The sudden awakening and consciousness of Ghanaians in the fight for their rights appears to have propelled the Appellant, who is a junior officer in one of the rural banks in the Western Region of the country, in spite of all odds, to challenge the decision of his management, the National Labour Commission and the Court of Appeal all the way to the apex court of the land. What makes the appellant’s steps even more intriguing is the fact that he acted throughout the various stages of this fight in the Court of Appeal and now the Supreme Court as a litigant in person. We commend the appellant for his bravery and perseverance but also wish to caution that in highly technical matters that require expert advice, a balance of self-help with professional advice is necessary to avoid a gamble, sometimes with its attendant repercussions.
THE FACTS
The appellant, until 29th June 2016, was a chief clerk in the Audit and Compliance department of Ahantaman Rural Bank Ltd (hereafter referred to as the Respondent). On 16th June 2016, the appellant abandoned midway and without permission, a bus carrying the bank’s staff to Achiase for a boot camp/bonding training. The bank held a disciplinary enquiry to investigate his conduct. The result of the enquiry was the termination of his appointment for gross misconduct. He was paid one (1)-month’s salary in lieu of notice in accordance with the respondent’s Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Dissatisfied with the decision of the management of the bank terminating his appointment, the appellant on 1st July 2016 petitioned the NLC for redress. The Commission has for some whimsical reasons been added as a party in the appeal to the Court of Appeal and then to this Court and described as 1st respondent. We shall address the propriety of adding the NLC as a party in due course.
After hearings spanning between 16th August 2017 and 20th September 2017, the NLC found that the respondent had unfairly terminated the appointment of the appellant in breach of sections 62 and 63 of the Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651). The NLC awarded the appellant compensation of three (3)-months’ salary devoid of tax. The appellant was dissatisfied with the compensa