Back
2021 MarsdenLR 1620
HIGH COURT MALAYA MELAKA
STREAMAX RESOURCES SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
SURIAHNI ABDULLAH – Respondent
[Administration Tribunal Appeal No: MA-16-4-10/2020]
The court upheld the PTKM's decision regarding unpaid wages, confirming continuous employment and proper notice issuance regarding contract termination.
Headnote:(A) Employment Act – Issues concerning claim for unpaid salary and termination notice – The PTKM awarded RM10,389.63 to the Complainant for unpaid wages and other entitlements. The evidence confirmed continuous employment despite disputing contract terms by the Party Claimed Against. The proper issuance of termination notice for a fixed-term contract was also discussed. (Paras 2, 17, 29, 39, 41) (B) Appellate Review – The court found that the PTKM's decision and findings were supported by sufficient evidence and were not plainly wrong. (Paras 40, 42)
Facts of the case: An appeal was made by the Appellant against PTKM's decision awarding the Complainant unpaid wages and entitlements amounting to RM10,389.63 after she was not paid during the MCO and regarding the nature of her contract.
Findings of Court: The court dismissed the appeal, upheld the PTKM’s decision, finding sufficient evidence supporting the Complainant’s claims. (Paras 39, 42)
Issues: The chief issues involved the nature of the employment contract, whether a notice of termination was required, and the justification for salary claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence supported the Complainant’s continuous employment and that the Appellant did not properly issue a notice of termination as required for fixed-term contracts. (Paras 17, 28, 29)
Result: The appeal was dismissed, and the original award by PTKM was upheld.
JUDGMENT
[1] This was an appeal by the Appellant against the decision of the Pejabat Tenaga Kerja Melaka ("PTKM") delivered on 30 September 2020 where PTKM allowed the claims by the Respondent against the Appellant.
[2] The PTKM awarded a total amount of RM10,389.63 comprising of the following:
- "Baki gaji April 2021": RM1,300.00
- "Baki gaji Mei 2021": RM1,300.00
- "Gaji cuti tahunan": RM150.00
- "Gaji ganti notis" (1 month): RM1,300.00
- "Faedah penamatan": RM6,339.62
[3] The Appellant appealed to this Court against the decision of the PTKM.
[4] The Appellant will be referred to as the Party Claimed Against and the Respondent shall be referred to as the Complainant.
Consideration By The High Court
[5] This Court reviewed and considered the notes of proceedings, the documents and the information put before the PTKM.
[6] In 2012, the Complainant started her employment with the Party Claimed Against.
[7] The Complainant testified that she started in May 2012. The witness for the Party Complaint Against confirmed the year 2012 but was not able to testify as to the exact date.
[8] In January 2019, the Complainant's salary was increased from RM1,200.00 (as stated in the letter found at p 51 of the Record of Appeal) to RM1,300.00.
[9] This fact was confirmed by the witness for the Party Complained Against (p 28 of the Record of Appeal).
[10] On 6 January 2020, the Complainant started her maternity leave. The period of maternity leave was from 6 January 2020 until 7 March 2020.
[11] According to the Complainant, she was paid a salary of RM1,300.00 per month for January, February and March 2020. The Complainant was not challenged on these facts.
[12] The last contract expired on 7 January 2020. According to the Complainant, after the end of her maternity leave (on 7 March 2020), she returned to work with the Party Complained Against. This fact was not disputed by the Party Complained Against.
[13] From 18 March 2020 until 9 June 2020, a Movement Control Order (MCO) was declared by the Federal Government which affected, among others, the state of Melaka.
[14] For April and May 2020, according to the Complainant, the Party Complained Against did not pay her any salary. This fact was not disputed by the Part Complained Against.
[15] According to the Complainant, a letter dated 18 March 2020 issued by the Party Complained Against was handed to her by the witness for the Party Complained Against on 9 June 2020.
[16] The witness for the Party Complained Against confirmed that the letter dated 18 March 2020 was handed to the Complainant on 9 June 2020.
Determination By The High Court
Issue 1
[17] The witness for the Party Complained Against, a director of the Party Complained Against, testified that:
"S: Adakah selepas cuti bersalin pengadu masuk bekerja semula?
J: Ada beberapa hari.
S: Sekiranya benar kontraknya tamat pada 8 Januari 2020 seharusnya pengadu tidak perlu masuk bekerja semula?
J: Ya.
S: Tempoh pemutus puan beritahu tadi, adakah pengadu tidak bekerja?
J: Bekerja seperti biasa. Cuma kontrak itu tidak diberi pada tarikh yang berlainan.
1. Kontrak pertama (22 Mac 2014 - 22 Mac 2015)
2. Kontrak Kedua (24 Februari 2015 - 24 Februari 2016)
3. Kontrak Ketiga (1 Mei 2016 - 1 Mei 2017)
4. Kontrak Keempat (2 Disember 2017 - 2 Disember 2018)
5. Kontrak Kelima (7 Januari 2019 - 7 Januari 2020)
S: Antara tempoh kontrak itu adakah pengadu tidak bekerja?
J: Pengadu masih bekerja."
[18] Based on the testimony of the witness for the Party Complained Against, it was clear that:
- the Complainant was not given a contract for every year that she worked with the Party Complained Against. The testimony of the Complainant was thus supported by the testimony of the witness for the Party Complained Against.
- the contracts which were given to the Complainant did not cover a continuous period of time and there were certain periods which do not appear to have been covered by any contract. However, according to the witness for the Party Complained Against, the Complainant
