Follow Us on Google
From Godwin Tsa, Abuja
The National Industrial Court ordered the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) to end its seven months strike and go back to work.
Justice Polycarp Hamman gave the order in his ruling on a suit filed by the Federal Government seeking an order for ASUU to call off its seven months strike.
He said he was invoking section 18 the Trade Dispute Act, which allows the court to order an end to strike when national interest is at stake.
Justice Hamman held that the application was meritorious and deserved to be granted by the court.
The court dismissed the objections raised against the suit by ASUU on the grounds that the strike action was detrimental to public university students that cannot afford to attend private tertiary institutions.
“The balance of convenience tilts in favour of the applicant.
“I hold that this application is meritorious and this application is granted”, Justice Hamman ruled.
The court, thereafter, issued an order, restraining ASUU, “whether by themselves, members, agents, privies or howsoever called, from taking further steps and doing any act in continuance of the strike action, pending the hearing and determination of the suit filed.”
The court however declined to award cost against ASUU as FG had demanded.
The Federal Government had through the Minister of Labour and Employment Dr.Chris Ngige filed the suit by way of referral to resolve the issue of the ongoing strike by ASUU.
Counsel to the Federal Government, Mr James Igwe, SAN, counsel to FG in his submission had informed the court that the application for the injunction was dated September 12 and filed same date.
Igwe added that the application was brought in pursuant to the rules of the NICN 2017 proceeding.
Igwe further stated that it was predicated on 11 ground, supported by 21 paragraph affidavit deposed to Mr Okechukwu Wampa, a Legal Adviser in the Ministry of Labour and Employment , attached with three exhibits and an undertaking as to damages deposed to by Wampa.
Government equally urged the court to grant the prayer sought and proceeded to adopt in its entirety and totality the written address, adding that the claimants had met all the requirements to enable the court grant the injunction
It cited that claimant’s action was not apprehensive and regarding damages, he said the lost time of seven months of the strike could not be regained.
Igwe argued that going by the provision of section 18 (1) (e) of the Trade Disputes Act 2004, that a worker should not embark on strike when a matter is already before the court, urged the court to grant the injunction.
However, counsel to ASUU, Mr Femi Falana SAN, drew the attention of the court to a nine paragraph counter-affidavit filed on September 16 deposed to by the president of ASUU.
Attached to the affidavit, he said, was eight exhibits accompanied by a written address and proceeded to adopt same as their argument in opposition to the interlocutory injunction.
Falana thereafter, argued that the minister lacked the power to order the court in the referral to direct ASUU to call off its strike.
He averred further that once a referral was before a court, no party could go outside of it.
Falana in his argument also pointed out that the claimants did not follow due process in part 1 of TDA 2004 that stipulated that only an individual has the right to approach the court as a trade union will first need to go to Industrial Abitration Panel ( IAP), before coming to the court.
He said union can only approach the NICN to appeal the decision of IAP
Falana also said that the letter that accompanied the referral had the name of the Attorney-General as a party in the suit, but that however, the application filed before the court was without the name.
He equally contended that the referral asking for accelerated hearing was not necessary as there was not urgency in the matter as the strike had lasted for seven months
He also submitted that the balance of convenience was not on the side of the claimants and that the conducts of the claimants in the prayer for the court to interpret the 2009 Agreement should be discountenanced.
He finally urged the court to dismiss the application or direct parties to the IAP.
