NARTEY-TOKOLI AND OTHERS v. VOLTA ALUMINIUM CO. LTD.

JUDGMENT OF WUAKU JSC.

This is an appeal by the plaintiffs and a cross appeal by the defendants from the judgment of the High Court, Accra presided over by Benin J. dated 12 January 1988. Throughout this judgment I will refer to the parties simply as the plaintiffs or the defendants as the case may be. Originally the writ of summons was issued for and on behalf of 463 plaintiffs; however by a notice dated 6 August 1987, five of the plaintiffs withdrew from the action. By their writ of summons the plaintiffs claim as follows:

"(1) Damages for wrongful termination of employment.

(2) Declaration that the purported termination of their employment is null and void, is of no legal effect and ought to be vacated.

(3) Arrears of all salary, all allowances and all benefits due to the plaintiffs from their respective dates of wrongful termination to date of judgment."

The writ of summons was accompanied with a twenty paragraph statement of claim. I consider it necessary to quote some paragraphs from the said statement of claim:

"(1) The plaintiffs have a common grievance, and common cause of action in which they agitate common grounds in law and in fact against the defendant-company ...

(3) Prior to 1 November 1982, 7 February 1983 and 31 December 1983, the plaintiffs were respectively in the employment of the defendant-company in various capacities as technicians, office workers, artisans, security men, pot- room attendants, etc and remained in such employment until either or other of the dates herein before referred to in this paragraph ...

(5) The terms and conditions of the plaintiffs' employment with the defendants were, at all material times, governed by a collective agreement made between the defendant-company and the Industrial and Commercial Workers Union of the Trades Union Congress of which all the plaintiffs are members.

(6) On or about 1 November 1982, 7 February 1983 and 31 December 1983 respectively. the defendant-company suddenly worked out a strange written programme which the defendant-company termed 'Leave of absence without pay/ recall programme and served same on the plaintiffs, at the [p.538] same time as they locked the plaintiffs out of the plant- their work place.

(7) To the said programmes referred to in paragraph (6) above were attached a letter which purported that the so-called 'Leave of absence/recall programmes' had been worked out between the defendant-company, the local union and the Workers Defence Committee-an organ whi