The National Industrial Court, on Monday restrained the Corporate Affairs Commission ( CAC), from interfering with the activities of the Amalgamated Union of Public Corporations, Civil Service Technical, and Recreational Services Employees (AUPCTRE) .

The President of the Court, Justice Benedict Kanyip while delivering judgment also awarded N1 million in favour of the claimant, as general damages.

The court in addition declared that the circular dated Jan. 11, issued by the CAC in dissolving AUPCTRE in its commission, as null and void and of no binding legal effect.

”The decisions reached against the union via the circular are arbitrary, unwarranted and oppressive.

“It amount to interference and violation of the union’s right to freely associate and operate as a trade union”, the judge added.

The court also held that the commission assertion that a pending suit was before the court for the interpretation and application of the judgment was misleading as that case had concluded and judgment delivered on May 27.

The court held that the rule against non-interference by an employer in trade union activities of the union in its workplace dictated that the commission must keep off from running of the defendant’s activities.

“The defendant setting up a forensic audit committee to audit the accounts of the claimant’s project is tantamount to interference with the legitimate activities of the union.

“The function to check the accounts of a trade union is that of the Registrar of Trade Unions, not the defendant”, the court ruled.

The sum of N300,000.00 was also awarded as cost of action in favour of the union to be paid within 30 days.

From facts, the claimant, AUPCTRE had prayed the court for determination of whether it did not amount to oppression and abuse of power for the defendant, CAC to purportedly dissolve its trade union activities.

The claimant further prayed for determination of court whether the defendant issuing queries to its members and directing them to vacate their offices was not an abuse of power especially as it was based on issues which had no bearing on their conditions of service and the core mandate of the commission.

In response, the defendant had sought for the dismissal or striking out of the suit on the premise that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the case.

The defendant had also submitted that the suit should be dismissed for being incompetent and an abuse of court process.

CAC also argued that the action was filed without giving the registrar of the commission the requisite statutory pre-action notice before filing of the action.

The commission also in its submission averred that the circumstances of the case were related to the administrative act between the commission, its employees.

The defendant also stated that those queried were senior staff who were not within the umbrella of membership of the defendant.