“Various acts may give rise to a dismissal. For example, wilful disobedience to lawful and reasonable orders, misconduct of the master’s business, neglect, incompetence and other conduct incompatible with or prejudicial to the master’s business. From the evidence before the Court it cannot be disputed that the conduct of the respondent justified his dismissal. The more important is that he was acting in breach of the agreement (Exhibit C) by carrying on extensive practice in his house at Yaba contrary to the terms of the agreement. A servant whose conduct is incompatible with the faithful discharge of his duty to his master, may be dismissed, as for instance, if unknown to his employer, he enters into transactions whereby his personal interests conflict with his duty as a servant in his particular capacity. See Pearce v. Foster (1886) 17 Q.B.D. 536; C.A and Ridgeway v. Hungerford Market Co., (1835) 3 Ad. & El. 171, and in Nicol v. Martyn (1799) 2 Esp.732, and East Anglian Railways Co. v. Lythgoe (1851) 10 C.B. 726, it was held that a servant whose conduct has been such that it would be injurious to the master’s business to retain him was justifiably dismissed. And in the case of a servant who takes advantage of his position to enrich himself as in the present case, he is not only accountable to his master for the proceeds but he is liable to an instant dismissal by the master. See the cases Boston Deep Sea Fishing and Ice Co. v. Ansell (1888) 39 Ch.D. 339 at pp. 367 & 368: and Reading v. Attorney General [1951] A.C. 507 H.L.”
LABOUR LAW – Dismissal of an Employee – Acts which may give rise to the dismissal of an employee
LABOUR LAW – Dismissal of an Employee – Position of the law where a master who condoned his servant’s behavior relies on it as a ground for dismissal on a subsequent occasionLABOUR LAW – Contract of Service or Contract of Employment – Whether an employer can discontinue a promotion granted in favour of an employee