The facts relied upon by both parties are as set out in the statement of claim of the plaintiffs. Appellants/Defendant. The 2nd Appellant is the Chairman and Managing Director of the 1st Appellant company. Plaintiffs/Respondents alleged that the employees of the 1st Appellant company and represented by the Plaintiffs were on the 27th September, 1982 locked out and had been laid off at different times by the 1st Appellant Company (See paragraphs 5 & 6 of the Statement of Claim). Prior to 1982, and on the 16th April, 1981, Representatives of 1st Plaintiffs members and of 1st Defendant/Appellants Union members had entered into an agreement with respect to end of service benefits. Again, the parties had as between them two existing collective agreements in 1979 and 1982 providing for Redundancy Benefit and end of Service Benefits. 1st Appellant in January, 1982, informed respondents of its plan to lay-off employees owing to shortage of raw materials for production. In 1982 by several letters Appellants also gave notice to the employees, now represented by Respondents, of the intention to lay them off. The method adopted by the 1st Appellant to do so was communicated in its letter dated 27th July, 1982. On the 31st August, 1982 2nd Appellant told all the employees of the 1st Appellant Company, represented by the Respondents, that because the possibility of obtaining raw materials was remote, all the employees should leave his employment without redundancy or any other benefits being paid to them. 2nd Appellant refused to honour the agreement to declare the employees redundant, and accordingly 1st and 2nd Respondents declared a trade dispute. The Federal Ministry of Labour intervened on the 13th September, 1982. On the strength of this intervention the 1st Defendant/Appellant on the 17th September, 1982 in breach of the Agreement of the 17th September, 1982 locked out and barred all the employees from entering the premises of the 1st Appellant Company. The Plaintiffs/Respondents therefore contend that the laying-off and the lock-out of the employees of the 1st Defendant company by the 2nd Defendant was illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Labour Act 1974 and the Trade Disputes Act 1976 respectively. Accordingly on the 22nd December, 1982, an action was brought in the Lagos State High Court Plaintiffs appealed to Court of Appeal, which set aside the High Court’s decision and remitted the case back to the High Court for trial, holding that the High Court has jurisdiction

Defendant’s appealed to the Supreme Court