The Presiding Judge, Enugu Judicial Division of the National Industrial Court, Hon. Justice Oluwakayode Arowosegbe has declared that there is no room for extension of probation period in Nigeria and that Chiamaka was deemed confirmed from the moment she reached 6 months at the place of work, which was the period stated in her appointment letter for probation.
The Court stated that it was patently wrong for Artee Limited and 3 others to include in the employment contract with Chiamaka a clause giving them the vires to extend her probation period as stated in the appointment letter under any guise.
Justice Arowosegbe ordered Artee Limited to pay Chiamaka the sum of N50,000 (Fifty Thousand Naira) only as one month’s salary in lieu of notice; N500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira] only as damages for unfair labour practices within 30 days.
From facts, the claimant- Chiamaka had alleged that while in the cause of her duties, she had an accident which led to her being unconscious and sustaining serious injuries which continue to cause excruciating pain as a result.
Chiamaka averred that the doctor insisted that she do the X-ray to decipher what was wrong with her internally so that she could no longer do heavy work or physical exercise and was compelled to resume work with injuries and without any form of health care.
She further averred that she was victimized and she was kept on probation for 18 months despite the maximum period in the company manual stipulated as 9 months. Subsequently, the claimant alleged that she was issued several queries and her employment was finally terminated illegally.
In defence, the defendants- Artee Limited and 3 others maintained that Chiamaka’s condition of employment stipulated a probationary period of 6 months but is extendable at the option of the firm. The firm added that Chiamaka was given 5 days off work after her treatment and upon resumption she never complained of any pain or health issues as a result of the accident.
The learned counsel submitted that Chiamaka never became unconscious anytime and her testimony about the accident and treatment is not credible, as the exhibits provided have contradictory dates and that Chiamaka’s employment was terminated in accordance with the contract of employment.
In opposition, the learned counsel to Chiamaka, O. O. Udo Esq argued that the real reason for the dismissal of his client was due to her demand for adequate treatment from the firm. The learned counsel submitted that the defendants deprived her client of compensation and must be held liable for their failure to comply with the Employees Compensation Act.
Delivering judgment after careful evaluation of the submissions of both parties, the Presiding Judge, Justice Oluwakayode Arowosegbe held that there are contradictory pieces of evidence about the exact injury suffered by Chiamaka and there is absolutely no iota of evidence to show that Chiamaka sustained any injury to her chest as a result of the accident.
The Court stated further that there is no iota of evidence on the nature of the machine that allegedly caused the accident to determine if it could cause any serious injury and there is evidence that Chiamaka had been a patient in the Hospital before the accident in issue.
Justice Arowosegbe reasoned that with doubt as to how the chest or leg injuries/pains occurred, an essential element of torts of negligence was not proved and no nexus was established on the alleged injury.
However, the Court faulted the action of Artee Limited and 3 others on non-confirmation of Chiamaka’s appointment, who had served for a total of 17 months, 11 of which months were above the contractual 6-month probation.
The Court held that the excuse of Artee Limited that Chiamaka did not meet the criteria for confirmation is not viable because, if Chiamaka had been confirmed, it still did not mean that she could not be removed, that the clause was inserted into the contract for the purposes of being abused.
“There is no room for extension of probation period in Nigeria. It is either you confirm or terminate at the agreed period. If an employer feels the employee did not quite measure up to the standard but could still not terminate the worker’s employment because the worker’s performance was all the same satisfactory enough to retain him/her, the worker, has by logic, met the requirement for confirmation and the employer’s refusal under such subjective conditions is definitely abusive.” The Court ruled.
