His Lordship, Hon. Justice Hamman Polycarp of the National Industrial Court, Portharcourt Judicial division has ordered Lonestar Drilling Nigeria Limited to pay Mr. Lawson Oredia the sum of $112, 000 US Dollars representing 16 months’ salary of the remaining tenure of the fixed term of 2 years of the contract of employment, and $3, 682.2 US Dollars for 16 days overtime with the sum of Four Hundred Thousand Naira cost of action within 30 days.

The Court held that the firm’s allegation that lawson Oredia was issued a letter of termination of employment failed and neglected to put any such letter in evidence and further that Mr. Lawson has established his case as required by law.

The Claimant- Lawson averred that he worked for the firm from August 2011 to March 2012 representing eight (8) months, including 16 days overtime before his salary was stopped for the remaining period of the contract of employment.

That he was neither suspended from work nor his contract terminated, and despite repeated demands, the firm has refused to pay him his entitlements, therefore asked the court to grant his reliefs.

In defence, the Defendant- Lonestar Drilling submitted that the lawson’s appointment was for a probationary period of six months and could only be confirmed upon the satisfactory performance on the job, that since the Claimant’s appointment was not confirmed, he is not entitled to the reliefs.

Firm Counsel, Esther Abbey-Ollo Esq further pleaded that since the probationary appointment could be terminated by either of the parties and under the Agreement, the Defendant terminated the Claimant’s appointment vide letter dated 1st March 2012 which was delivered to the Claimant but he refused to acknowledge.

That sequel to the termination of the claimant’s appointment, he was paid his salary and entitlements for February 2012 including one month’s salary in lieu of notice, that the Claimant’s conduct of denying the termination of his employment and insistence of the subsistence of the contract and payment of salaries and other benefits constitutes fraud and illegality on his part.

In reply, the Claimant counsel Obinna Amorha Esq submitted that the payment of one month salary was not in lieu of notice but for the payment of his salary for March 2012, urged to hold that his entitle to the full salary he would have earned in the fixed contract.

Delivering judgment, the presiding Judge, Justice Polycarp assumed court jurisdiction and held that claimant having been allowed to work beyond the six months probationary period and paid his salaries, that the Defendant is deemed to have confirmed the appointment of the Claimant.

“It is noted that the employment of the Claimant by the Defendant is not in doubt as paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 of the Amended Statement of Facts, paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the Claimant’s statement on oath all indicated that the Claimant was employed as Chief Mechanic on the 27th May 2011 for a period of two years from 1st August 2011 when he resumed duty to 31st July 2013.

“Fraud being a criminal allegation must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt by the party alleging it, and that burden is solely on the Defendant in this suit notwithstanding the civil nature of the case. The defendant has woefully failed to prove the criminal allegation in this suit. I so find and hold.

“The law is as rightly submitted by the learned Claimant’s counsel that, an employer cannot terminate a contract that has a fixed term or duration, and where such a contract is terminated before the fixed term, the employee is entitled to the full salary for the unexpired period of the contract.

“On the strength of the evidence adduced by the Claimant in this suit, I am convinced that he has established his case as required by law and is therefore entitled to the reliefs he is seeking before the court.”