The terms 'statutory deductions, if any' in awards do not encompass EPF and SOCSO contributions, as compensation and back wages are not classified as wages under relevant laws.

AWARD

Ani Solep @ Julia Anne Marie Solep:

Background Facts

[1] In Award No 2866 of 2019 (Anthony Cyprian Chin v. Daiken Sarawak Sdn Bhd) (dismissal award) dated 31 October 2019 in Case No 8/4-1138/17, the company was ordered to pay the claimant a global sum of RM479,290.40, less statutory deductions, if any, within one month from the date of the award.

[2] The company being dissatisfied with award had the award reviewed in the Application for Judicial Review in High Court, Bintulu.

[3] After the company's Application for Judicial Review was dismissed, the company on 6 November 2020 paid the said RM479,290.40 to the claimant.

[4] The claimant's Form M application made pursuant to s 33(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 and filed on 23 February 2021 is for an interpretation of the last sentence of the award which reads:

"Consequently, this Honourable Court orders the company to pay the claimant a global sum of RM479,290.40, less statutory deductions, if any, within one month from the date hereof."

[5] In Form M, the claimant pleaded that the above provision should be interpreted in the following manner:

"The phrase "statutory deductions, if any" means the statutory EPF and SOCSO contributions of the claimant as well as the claimant's income tax deductions (PCB). Further, the company shall also make its contributions of EPF and SOCSO in favour of the claimant to the requisite boards".

The Claimant's Case

[6] On the hearing of the Application by Form M on 17 May 2021, the claimant's learned counsel reminded the Court that the claimant was dismissed without just cause and excuse. The claimant's learned counsel referred to that part of the award which says: "Based on the evidence adduced, both oral and documentary... Accordingly, this Court holds that the claimant was dismissed without just cause and excuse". The claimant's learned counsel submitted that the phrase "statutory deductions, if any" means the statutory EPF and SOCSO contributions of the claimant as well as the claimant's income tax deductions (PCB). Further, submitted the claimant's learned counsel, the company shall also make its contributions of EPF and SOCSO in favour of the claimant to the requisite boards.

[7] In support of her contention that the phrase "statutory deductions, if any" means the statutory EPF and SOCSO contributions of the claimant as well as the claimant's income tax deductions (PCB), the claimant's learned counsel referred to the case of Harpers Trading (M) Sdn Bhd v. National Union Of Commercial Workers, 1991 MarsdenLR 876 . In Harpers Trading (M) Sdn Bhd v. National Union Of Commercial Workers it was held:

Since back wages were specifically awarded which in fact are wages he would have earned had his services not been unlawfully terminated it would be a travesty of justice to deny Tang Seng Khow the employer's contribution to EPF. Since wages were paid, call it back wages, if you like, logically and lawfully the employer's EPF contributions are payable under the Act.

...

Once it is accepted that back wages are wages then it is inevitable that EPF contributions would legally follow in the same way as the payment of bonus is inevitable once it is accepted that Tang Seng Khow would have been entitled to serve the company during the period from 1 January 1986 to 24 February 1988 but for the purported and unlawful dismissal. In our view it matters not if computation of wages is described as a means to determine the quantum of compensation because if this proposition is correct then why should not employer's contribution also be equally taken into account in the computation since the Industrial Court is under a legal duty to act according to equity and good conscience?

[8] The claimant also referred to Sivabalan Poobalasingam v. Kuwait Finance House (Malaysia) Berhad; [2016] 1 ILR 542 which relied on Harpers.

[9] The claimant's learned counsel submitted that evidence was adduced at the trial that EPF contributions of about RM2,400, SOCSO and income tax deductio