The Industrial Court exceeded its jurisdiction by overruling a sanctioned Unsecured Scheme of Arrangement and ordering payments inconsistent with High Court directives.

JUDGMENT

Noorin Badaruddin J:

[1] The Application before this Court stems from three similar Industrial Court Awards (which are identical except for references to the specific Claimants before the Industrial Court in each case), namely Awards No 761, 762 and 763 of 2020 (the "Award") handed down on 4 June 2020 respectively in respect of the following Industrial Court Cases ("the Industrial Court Cases"):

a) Industrial Court Case No 7(30)(3)/4-1731/16: Nasir bin Kassim v. Megasteel Sdn Bhd.;

b) Industrial Court Case No 7/4-1704/16: Khairulfata bin Muhamad & 36 Others v. Megasteel Sdn Bhd; and

c) Industrial Court Case No 7(30)(3)/4-1420/16: Ooi Hong Tatt and 31 Others v. Megasteel Sdn Bhd.

[2] The Applicant filed separate Judicial Review Applications in respect of each of the said Awards, namely Judicial Review Applications Nos WA-25-223-08/2020, WA-25-224-08/2020 and WA-25-225-08/2020, to quash a portion of the said Awards, namely:

- that the Order that the Applicant shall pay to the 1st Respondents their respective three (3) months' salaries in lieu of notice of termination, in full, within 60 days of the said Awards (the "Impugned Order")

[3] By an Order of the High Court dated 23 September 2020 Judicial Review Applications WA-25-223-08/2020, WA-25-224-08/2020 and WA-25-225-08/2020 were consolidated, with Application WA-25-223-08/2020 and the latter was assigned as the "parent case".

Salient Facts

[4] In 2016, the Applicant, facing serious financial difficulties, was forced to retrench the 1st Respondents from service with the Applicant ("the retrenchment exercise").

[5] At the time of the retrenchment exercise, the Applicant paid to the 1st Respondents all the sums due to them, save and except for their respective three (3) months' salaries in lieu of Notice of Termination (the "Notice Pay");

[6] Facing difficulties in meeting its debts, the Applicant began restructuring its debts through Schemes of Arrangement with a secured scheme encompassing its Secured Debts, and an Unsecured scheme encompassing its Unsecured debts.

[7] Accordingly, all 70 of the 1st Respondents were invited to submit Proofs of Debt to the Applicant, of which 65 of the 70 1st Respondents including the deponent of the 1st Respondents1 Affidavits submitted their Proofs of Debt to the Applicant between 8 June 2018 and 8 August 2018, and under which only the debt for the Notice Pay was approved and included under the Unsecured Scheme.

[8] On 21 September 2018, the High Court at Kuala Lumpur vide Originating Summons WA-24NCC-481 -09/2018 had granted a 2nd Restraining Order for a period of 3 months from 21 September 2018 until 21 December 2018 and gave the Applicant liberty to convene meetings of the Scheme Creditors pursuant to s 366(1) of the Companies Act 2016 .

[9] Accordingly, a meeting of the unsecured creditors was convened on 10 July 2019 and majority of the unsecured creditors (ie equivalent to 99.42% of the value of the debt) voted in favour of the Unsecured Scheme, achieving the statutory majority required.

[10] By an Order of the High Court dated 7 August 2019, the Secured Scheme of Arrangement was sanctioned by the High Court.

[11] By an Order of the High Court dated 10 September 2019, the Unsecured Scheme of Arrangement was sanctioned subject to the Secured Scheme of Arrangement.

[12] Following their dismissal from the services of the Applicant, the 1st Respondents had filed representations under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 , claiming that their dismissals were without just cause and/or excuse.

[13] Prior to the handing down of the Awards dated 4 June 2020 until 2 August 2020, the said Unsecured Scheme pursuant to the Order of the High Court dated 10 September 2019 had yet to take effect under s 366(5) of the Companies Act 2016 since it had yet to be lodged with the Companies Commission of Malaysia;

[14] On 4 June 2020, the Industrial Court/2nd Respondent handed down its decision for the Industrial Court Cases in the said Awards, where it decid