(14.10.1986)

AWARD

The Claimants were repeatedly requested to provide a photocopy of their identity cards and the Claimants gave lame excuses each time and failed to comply with the instruction.

The union contends that the dismissals were without just cause or excuse and in breach of the rules of natural justice.

The Union further contends that the dismissals of the Claimants were void, illegal, mala fide, and that it amounts to an unfair labour practice in the field of Industrial Law, and ought to be struck down as such.

The Case

When the case came up for hearing on 12 august 1985, the counsel for the Union applied to the Court to join the Company- (the Oriental Ceramics Sdn.Bhd) - as a Party, and this was referred under paragraph 4 of the statement of Case.

He listed out several reasons for such application, namely:

(a) the Claimants at all material time employed by the Company;

(b)Section 33 of the Employment Act is the provision for such application;

(c) in law to give the Company a chance to defend itself;

(d) the statement of Case was intended to be served on the Company;

(e) the labour contractors merely supplied labour to the Company, and their place of work remained in the premises of the Company

The counsel for the contractors disagreed with such application and listed out his reason;

(1) the Contractors admitted that the Claimants were employed by the respective Contractors;

(2)Section 33 of the Employment Act relates to the liability of the Company when the Contractors fail to pay wages to the employees.In the event that the contractors do not pay the wages due to the employees the law imposes upon the Company the liability jointly and severally.

(3) They are independent Contractors but not merely supplying the labour

The Court ORDERED that the case was to proceed until there is evidence to review it.

Puan Sumingah bte Lasimun - ( the first Contractor) - told the Court that she is a Contractor, and when she first started the Contract she had 11 workers and today she has 25 workers.

Before she became a Contractor, she registered her business with Registrar of Businesses: known as 'Pemborong Sumingah bte Lasimun'.

When she started business with the Company, she entered into a contract with the Company.

She registered with the Employes Provident Fund (EPF) and she also registered with SOCSO. She has been paying EPF contributions continuously for her employees, and she has been paying SOCSO contributions.She has been paying wages to her employees twice a month.

On 3March 1984, she received a letter from SOCSO; then she asked Cik Zahariah bte Wahab to give a photo copy of her identity card on 3march 1984.Cik Zahariah said that she did not bring her identity card; Puan Sumingah asked her to bring it the following day.She told Cik Zahariah that according to the letter - (C0.6) - Cik Zahariah had the same identity card of another employee working in a different company.

The next day Cik Zahariah forgot to bring it and she did not give a photocopy of her identity card.

She told Cik Zahariah again and explained to her the importance of producing the photocopy of her identity card on 4, 5 and 6 of march 1984.She still refused to give her photocopy of the identity card.

On 5 March 1984, she requested assistance from the Personnel Department regarding the letter from SOCSO - (Co.6.) Cik Zahariah still refused to give her identity card.

On 7 March 1984, she gave Cik Zahariah a letter of suspension; suspending her for a week from 7 March 1984 to 14 March 1984 with half pay.

On 10 March 1984 at 10.30 a.m. she conducted an Inquiry; the Claimant was present, and she got the assistance of one of the officers from the Personnel Department to take the notes.She put the questions to Cik Zahariah.The Claimant signed the notes of Inquiry.

Before the Inquiry started, she asked the Claimant for the identity card, and after the Inquiry she also asked the Claimant but the Claimant refused to give th