The National Industrial Court sitting in Abuja has dismissed the preliminary objection raised by Belview Airline challenging the competence of the suit filed against the airline it by its former employees.
The airline which shut down operations following several challenges was bought over by First Nation Airways, an airline believed to be owned by the National Leader of the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN). The First Nation Airways only flew for sometime before going off the skies.
The affected staff were given indefinite leave of absence without pay while the airline was packing up. Now, the staff want the court to declare as illegal, null and void the indefinite leave.
Nine former workers of the airline, led by one Reuben Wada, had sued the company and two others demanding for the payment of their entitlements. They joined the First-Nation Airways Support Services Ltd and its Chairman, Mr Kayode Odukoya, as defendants in the suit.
They are also praying the court to order the defendants to recall them and pay all their salary arrears since May 2009 to date.
In February when the case first came up, the defendant’s Counsel, Mr. A.B Ige, raised a preliminary objection challenging the competence of the suit. He also urged the court to dismiss the suit as according to him, the case did not state any cause of action against the defendants.
At the court on Tuesday, counsel to the claimants, Mr. Emmanuel Audu, told the court that the claimants were in the employ of Belview Airlines until May 2009 when they were sent on an indefinite leave explaining further that this was because there was no operation at the time.
However, according to him, the airline later began operation with the name, First-Nation Airways Support Services Ltd, while the staff were still on leave. The management of the airline refused to recall the claimants or send them away properly.
He therefore urged the court to dismiss the preliminary objection and order for hearing in the case.
Delivering the ruling, Justice Maureen Esowe declared that the action was in order since it concerned the employment of the claimants with the defendant. She also stressed that the service of writ of summons on the defendant outside the jurisdiction was in order and that there was disclosure of cause of action by the claimants.
Declaring that the issues before the court for determination were whether the parties in the suit were properly joined, she added: “the court therefore holds that the provision of sharing and service rules does not beset the case of the claimants in this suit.”
Adjoining the case to September 17 for commencement of hearing, the judge declared: “the court so holds that there is disclosure of cause of action since the claimants are seeking for a declaration that they are being owed by the defendants.”
