Court to hear report of settlement in ex-workers’ suit against ABU Jan. 30
The National Industrial Court, Abuja, on Monday, fixed Jan. 30, 2024, for further report of settlement in a suit filed by 110 former staff members of Ahmadu Bello University (ABU) against the institution.
Justice Rakiya Haastrup adjourned the matter after counsel for the claimants, Adegboyega Kolade, and defendants’ lawyer, Abubakar Is’haq, agreed to await the computation format of the two federal government agencies involved.
Supreme News reports that while the 110 ex-staff members are the claimants, ABU is the sole defendant in the suit
Upon resumed hearing on Monday, Kolade informed the court that the claimants joined the defendant at a meeting as National Pension Commission (PENCOM) as instructed.
He craved the indulgence of the court for his colleague, Femi Adedeji, who was at the meeting, to brief the court on what transpired.
Adedeji notified the court that during the meeting, both parties were properly guided on the position of the law regarding the pension and gratuity of the judgment creditors (110 former workers).
He said the parties also had meeting with the Pension Transitional Arrangement Directorate (PTAD) on how their clients would be settled amicably.
The lawyer said he met with learner friend to the judgment debtor (ABU) on how to implement the information gotten from these government agencies.
“I equally hinted my learner friend on the need to submit to a third party like an arbitrator or referee because there may be information we may not be able to resolve for them to find a balance for the two of us,” he said.
Adedeji prayed the court for an order for the parties to submit themselves to arbitrators or a referees who were experts in the field in accordance with Order 29 of the rules of the court, or alternative dispute resolution (ADR) of the court.
Corroborating Adedeji’s submission, Kolade said by virtue of Section 31 (a), (b) and (c) of National Industrial Court Act, 2006 and order 29 of the rules of the court, the judge had the power to appoint a referee or an arbitrator in agreement with parties.
“This is a situation where we need pension consultant to come in,” he said, insisting that there were grey areas the employer (ABU) was yet to comply with on contributory pension scheme since 2007 in accordance with pension act.
Kolade, who alleged that the ABU had not given them the format of its computation despite their request, said the institution planned to enforce its calculation on their clients but Is’haq denied the allegation.
Is’haq, said though parties met at PENCOM on Dec. 11 with representatives of the agency, he said the agency made it clear that it was its responsibility to calculate and compute all the entitlements of all those ex-workers who had crossed to Pension Reformed Act (PRA) 2004 with a definite day of June 2007.
He said they were told it was the duty of the employer to submit their records of service and they would take care of whatever they are duly entitled to while those who are under old pension act, PTAD would takes care of them.
Is’haq said though a letter requesting for a written clarification on this was submitted to PENCOM in order to tender it in court, unfortunately, they were yet to get it.
He, however, disagreed on appointment of an arbitrator saying it was not possible under the law because an appeal on the computation of the entitlement by the university and another appeal by CBN on the order absolute attaching the judgment sum had been entered.
Besides, the lawyer said the Court of Appeal also had arbitration process which parties could submit themselves to, and above all, that parties could sit together and resolve the issues in good faith.
Justice Haastrup, who said there must be a compromise and the principle of give and take should be adopted in the resolution, urged counsel to be ready to lose and win in the approach.
She said the court would not go outside the scope of PENCOM and PTAD.
The judge directed the parties to get the documents regarding PENCOM and PTAD’s computation with a view to resolving the matter
She adjourned the matter until Jan. 30 for further report of settlement.
NAN reports that the claimants’ appointments were terminated in 1996.
However, as part of the order of the court, the institution converted the termination letters to reinstatement or retirement letters as applicable to each staff members.
The parties as part of terms of settlement had agreed on arrears of salary computations, but have failed to reach an agreement on the pension and gratuity computations.
