Uyo—The Presiding Judge, National Industrial Court sitting in Uyo, His Lordship, Hon. Justice Mahmood Namtari has ordered Inspector General of Police and the Police Service Commission to promote Reuben Micheal to the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) II with effect from 2011 and pay him all his financial entitlements and benefits within 90 days.
The court held that Reuben Micheal has not only earned his promotion but also brought the facts within the exceptions of the law.
The Claimant who was enlisted in the Nigeria Police Force as a Police Constable and is currently a Police Inspector, posited that having embarked on study leave on the approval of the Inspector General of Police and obtained his Degree certificate, wrote and passed ASCON ASP Examination, that he is entitled to promotion or upgrade to the rank of ASP and all efforts to make the IGP and Police Service Commission to do the needful proved abortive.
The Claimant also feels that the period of four years study leaves without pay would be counted and added up to his 35 five years in service which indeed will work as an injustice on him and by now he would have been a Superintendent of Police (SP) going by Public Service Rules.
The Claimant also noted that as a general rule, promotion from one level or position in an organization to another is not a right but a privilege; but submitted that there is no general rule without exception urged the Court to accept the unchallenged and un-controverted evidence placed before it that the defendants are presumed to have admitted the case made against them.
However, the Defendants did not enter any formal appearance nor defence and did not have any legal representation throughout the hearing of the case in spite of been put on notice at every turn.
Delivering the Judgment, the presiding Judge, Justice Namtari held that Lack of evidence or defence does not guarantee automatic victory to the claimant since the evidence does not become credible merely because it is unchallenged.
“On the state of documentary evidence and the law, I have no hesitation in finding and holding that the Claimant has not only earned his promotion but also brought the facts within the exceptions of the law. A look at the evidence will support this stance.
The court declared the Defendants’ refusal to promote the Claimant as vindictive, mala fide, and so qualifies as unfair labour practice.