Employees are entitled to full salary payments despite operational restrictions, as contractual obligations prevail over arguments linking payment solely to work performed.

JUDGMENT

Abdul Wahab Mohamed J:

Introduction

[1] This judgment concerns an appeal against the decision of the Industrial Court of Justice (ICJ) which ruled in favour of the Respondents in their claim against the Appellant, Sri Maju Sarata Ekspress Sdn Bhd. The Appellant contests various aspects of the ICJ's decision, particularly the entitlement of the Respondents to full salary payments and the impact of their part-time employment during the claim period. After careful consideration, this Court upholds the ICJ's decision, finding that the appeal lacks merit.

Background Facts

[2] The Respondents in this case have sought from the Appellant the full payment of their monthly salaries, amounting to RM600.00 each, for the period commencing July 2020 and concluding in February 2021.

[3] The Respondents comprise 36 individuals who assert their entitlement to the aforementioned salary payments.

[4] Following a thorough examination of the case, the Industrial Court of Justice (ICJ) determined that the Appellant is liable to pay the aggregate sum of RM177,600.00 to the Respondents, covering the salary payments for the months from July 2020 until February 2021.

[5] Aggrieved by the ICJ's ruling, the Appellant has lodged this appeal against the decision rendered by the ICJ.

Issues To Be Determined

[6] The Appellant contests the decision of the Industrial Court of Justice (ICJ) on several grounds, which are as follows:-

(i) Whether the Appellant was the proper party to be sued by the Respondents;

(ii) Whether wages are paid for work done only;

(iii) Validity of the Consent Letter;

(iv) Whether the Court should deny claims to specific Respondents on the basis of their withdrawal from proceedings and purported lack of comprehension regarding the proceedings; and

(v) Whether the existence of part-time employment during the claim period should influence the quantum of the final award.

(i) Whether The Appellant Was The Correct Party To Be Sued

[7] This issue pertains to the Appellant's contention that Sri Maju is not the employer of all 36 Respondents, and consequently, Sri Maju is not the appropriate party to be sued by 25 out of the 36 Respondents. The Appellant argues that each Respondent should pursue claims against the specific company with which they individually contracted. The Industrial Court has acknowledged that Sri Maju, Aneka, Azra, and Germuda are part of the same corporate group, sharing common ownership. While recognising the separate legal identities of these entities, the Industrial Court also noted that the corporate veil might be lifted where the operational realities of the group warrant such an approach.

[8] Citing the case of Pamol (Sabah) Ltd & Anor v. Joseph bin Paulus Lantip & Ors; [2012] 5 MLJ 616, the Appellant asserts that Sri Maju, Aneka, Azra, and Germuda are distinct legal entities with separate rights and liabilities.

[9] The Appellant maintains that, absent specific statutory provisions or instances where the corporate veil is pierced due to misuse of the corporate structure for fraudulent or improper purposes, the separateness of these entities should be upheld. Accordingly, liabilities incurred by one company should not be automatically attributed to another within the group.

[10] Furthermore, the Appellant argues that each employment contract clearly designates the specific employer, which is the only entity liable under the contract. The Appellant relies on a contractual clause stating, "I agree to work at such times and at such place as the management may think fit," contending that this clause does not alter the identity of the designated employer. Despite the companies operating as a group, each functions under separate contracts, thereby reinforcing their legal independence.

[11] The Appellant submits that even if certain Respondents received their salaries from a different company than that named in their contracts, such payments were made purely for administrative convenience and do not signify a change in t