Back
2025 MarsdenLR 511
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
MOHAMAD SYAZWAN SHUHAIMI – Appellant
Versus
ALIFF SYUKRI KAMARZAMAN – Respondent
[Suit No: BA-22NCVC-302-08/2020]
A breach of contract claim for unpaid salary can be adjudicated in civil court, independent of statutory remedies under the Employment Act.
Headnote:(A) Employment Act 1955 - Section 69 - Breach of contract - Plaintiff's claim for unpaid salary of RM3,000.00 for September 2018 allowed - Defendant's argument regarding jurisdiction based on the Employment Act dismissed as misconceived - Court held that the claim was contractual and independent of the Employment Act's provisions. (Paras 1, 8, 13, 25, 29)
(B) Jurisdiction - The principle of exhaustion of statutory remedies does not apply when the claim is based on a breach of contract, allowing the Plaintiff to seek relief in civil court. (Paras 15, 26)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a business agreement in January 2018, with the Plaintiff managing operations and receiving a salary of RM3,000.00 monthly. Following unilateral termination of the agreement in September 2018, the Plaintiff claimed unpaid salary and damages.
Findings of Court:
The Plaintiff established wrongful termination and was entitled to recover unpaid salary and damages amounting to RM143,000.00.
Issues: Whether the Plaintiff's claim for unpaid salary could be adjudicated in civil court or was required to be brought under the Employment Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the claim for unpaid salary was contractual, not subject to the Employment Act's jurisdictional provisions, and thus could be heard in civil court.
Result: Plaintiff's claim allowed.
Introduction
[1] On 13 January 2025, this court allowed the Plaintiff's claim founded on a breach of contract. The amount of RM143,000.00 was ordered to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. Thereafter the Defendant applied for leave to appeal to the court of Appeal.
[2] On 8 April 2025, the court of Appeal granted leave to the Defendant to appeal, subject only to a limited issue. Thereafter, the Defendant filed his Notice of Appeal on 14 April 2025 to reflect the issue upon which the Defendant was allowed to appeal against the judgment of this court as follows:
"Yang Arif Hakim Yang Bijaksana telah terkhilaf dari segi undang- undang dan fakta apabila membenarkan tuntutan Responden berkenaan jumlah gaji RM3,000.00 tanpa mempertimbangkan s 69 Akta Kerja dan kes Mahkamah Persekutuan iaitu Manggai v. Government Of Sarawak & Anor ; "
[3] The judgment hereinafter is to address the narrow point with which the Defendant was dissatisfied with the judgment of this court.
Background Facts
[4] A brief statement of the background facts will throw light on the circumstances the appeal was brought.
[5] On 1 January 2018 both the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into an agreement titled Perianjian Perniagaan Restoran Rumahmakan Terlajak Laris. ("RMTL"). The said agreement provided for the terms upon which the restaurant business was to be established and operate. Essentially, the Plaintiff was given the responsibility to manage the vendors and staff of RMTL, procurement of raw materials and supplies of RMTL as well as creating promotional materials for RMTL. It was also agreed that the Plaintiff would be entitled to 45% of the profits generated from the business.
[6] The Plaintiff expended an amount of RM20,000.00 and RM120,000.00 on separate occasions for the benefit of the business.
[7] Shortly after executing the business agreement, sometime in March 2018, parties agreed that the Plaintiff was to be paid a salary of RM3,000.00 per month for the duration of the RMTL business. The Plaintiff received salary commencing March 2018 until the month of August 2018. He was not paid salary for the month of September 2018.
[8] On or around 21 September 2018, the Defendant terminated the business agreement. At the trial before me, the Plaintiff claimed that the termination was unilateral, hence wrongful. The Defendant contended it was mutual.
[9] After evaluating the evidence adduced by both parties, I found the Plaintiff had successfully established a case of wrongful termination, constituting a breach of the business agreement entered into. Based on the evidence, I also found that the Plaintiff was entitled to a refund of all monies paid to the Defendant and the RMTL business amounting to RM140,000.00. All other claims were not allowed as it was not to be proven on the available evidence.
[10] In addition to the above, I allowed the claim of RM3,000.00 being unpaid salary for the month of September 2018.
[11] The agreement to pay the Plaintiff a salary of RM3,000.00 was not disputed. In cross-examination, the Defendant categorically admitted the existence of an agreement. His evidence as recorded in the Notes of Proceedings was as follows:
"RKR: Adakah...okay. That's my question. Adakah dalam salah satu syarat perjanjian dalam perniagaan ini kedua-dua partner akan mendapat gaji bulanan 3,000?
DW1: Saya tidak ada gaji tapi beliau...soalan dia apa? Ya atau tidak?
PKR: Ya atau tidak? Ada gaji? Tak ada gaji?
DW1: Ada. Ya.
PKR: Ada gaji?
DW1: Ada'
[12] The Plaintiff admitted he received the agreed salary of RM3,000.00 for the months of March 2018 to August 2018. However, the payment was not forthcoming for the month of September 2018.
Whether The Claim For Salary Can Be Brought In The Civil court
[13] At the trial, the Defendant opposed the Plaintiff's claim for unpaid salary on the ground that it was brought in the wrong forum. It ought to have been brought in accordance with the provisions of s 69 of the Employment Act 1955 which rea
