Back
2025 MarsdenLR 3300
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
YUNIKU COSMETIC (M) SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
YEONG YU LENG & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: WA-16-13-11/2022]
The court affirmed that the maternity allowance under the Employment Act applies regardless of part-time employment status, maintaining that the Director General acted within jurisdiction in ordering entitlement based on the established employment relationship.
Headnote:(A) Employment Act 1955 - Section 69 - Maternity Allowance - Employment relationship established for maternity claim - Appeal dismissed as Appellant failed to prove Respondents' status as part-time exempting entitlement - The Labour Court properly exercised jurisdiction under Section 69B despite claims of misinterpretation of employment contracts. (Paras 8, 12, 25)
(B) Appeal dismissed - No substantial error found in the Director General of Labour's (DGL) judgment based on the evidence submitted - Appellant’s arguments regarding improper testimonies were unconvincing and did not demonstrate significant judicial misdirection. (Paras 44, 46)
Facts of the case:
Appeal by Appellant against DGL’s decision for unpaid salary and maternity allowance claims amounting to RM11,854.86 by two former employees due to unpaid wages and allowances, leading to a claim filed under Section 69. The DGL ordered the Appellant to pay the sum, while dismissing other claims.
Findings of Court:
The DGL correctly interpreted and applied provisions of the Employment Act regarding employee status and maternity leave, concluding both Respondents met criteria for claims. Extensive evidence supported the findings.
Issues: Whether the Respondents qualified as employees under the Employment Act for maternity claims; whether Appellant's claims against DGL's decision were valid; whether early termination of employment was justifiable.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court upheld the DGL’s jurisdictional application of Section 69B, affirming that the definition of employee extended protection regardless of payment methods or part-time status.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal overview and case details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. appellant's grounds for appeal. (Para 4) |
| 3. dgl's factual findings on employee status. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. correct application of s 69b of ea 1955. (Para 8 , 10 , 14) |
| 5. maternity rights under ea 1955. (Para 16 , 17 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. eligibility for maternity allowance. (Para 23 , 24 , 26) |
| 7. contract of service definition. (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 8. employer-employee relationship confirmation. (Para 31 , 32 , 34) |
| 9. early termination of employment. (Para 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 10. dgl's consideration of evidence. (Para 43 , 44 , 46 , 47) |
| 11. affirmation of dgl’s decision. (Para 49) |
Introduction
[1] This is an appeal (Encl 1) by the Appellant against the decision of the learned Director General of Labour (DGL) dated 9 November 2022 whereby the Appellant was ordered to pay the Respondents the total sum of RM11,854.86.
[2] After the hearing, I dismissed the Appellant's appeal (Encl 1). The reasons for the decision are set down below.
Background Facts
[3] The background facts of this case can be summarized as follows:
3.1 The Respondents were both former employees of the Appellant. The First Respondent was employed by the Appellant from 5 January 2021 until her effective date of resignation on 30 May 2022.
3.2 The Second Respondent was employed by the Appellant starting from 10 February 2022 until her employment was abruptly terminated by the Appellant on 16 June 2022.
3.3 Due to non-payment of wages, salary in lieu of notice period, maternity benefits and/ or other allowances, the Respondents lodged a complaint against the Appellant according to s 69 of the Employment Act 1955 ( EA 1955) at the Labour Department of Kuala Lumpur (Labour Court) on 14 July 2022 which was registered as Director General of Labour Summon Case No KBR/11401/2022/0783 (Labour Case).
3.4 The Labour Case was heard by the Labour Court on 12 October 2022 and decided on 9 November 2022 in favor of the Respondents wherein pursuant to the Order, the DGL had ordered the Appellant to pay the Respondents the total sum of RM11,854.86, the breakdown of which are as follows:
(A) In relation to the First Respondent. Yeonq Yu Lena
(i) Commission for May 2022 RM136.66
(ii) Balance salary for May 2022 (11 days) RM993.54
(iii) Petrol allowance for May 2022 (11 days) RM110.00
(iv) Parking Claims for May 2022 RM98.00
(v) Maternity allowance (60 days) RM4,600.00
(B) In relation to the Second Respondent, Peh Lee Huey
(i) Balance salary for June 2022 (15 days) RM916.66
(ii) Salary in lieu of notice (2 months) RM5,000.00
By the same Order, the DGL also dismissed the Respondent's claims for annual leave, Covid-19 quarantine leave, sick leave and hospitalization leave and the Second Respondent's claim for commission for May 2022.
3.5 Being dissatisfied with the Order, the Appellant then lodged an appeal to this Honourable Court by filing the Notice of Appeal on 22 November 2022.
The Appellant's Grounds For Appeal
[4] In this appeal, the Appellant sought to set aside the decision of the DGL. The grounds of the appeal as stated in the Memorandum of Appeal dated 21 December 2022 can be summarized as follows:
4.1 The DGL had erred in fact and in law in his decision when he failed and/or did not take into account the relevant fact that the First Respondent, Yeong Yu Leng was a part-time employee of the Appellant and thus, not eligible for the maternity allowance claim filed by her;
4.2 The DGL had erred in fact and in law in deciding that s 37 of the EA 1955 is applicable to the First Respondent's claim;
4.3 The DGL had erred in fact and in law in his decision when he failed and/or did not take into the relevant fact that the First Respondent was a part-time employee of the Appellant;
4.4 The DGL had erred in fact and in law in his decision when he misinterpreted and misapplied the principle of "contract of service" which had been set out in the case of Tekun Concrete (M) Sdn Bhd v. Zulkafah Norazri .
4.5 The DGL had erred in fact and in law in
