Back
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
GUINNESS ANCHOR (M) SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
GOH KEAT HIN – Respondent
AWARD
Franklin Goonting:
[1] This is a reference pursuant to s. 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 requiring the court to hear and determine the claimant's complaint concerning his dismissal by the respondent on 24 August 2001.
[2] By paragraph 11 of his statement of case the claimant prayed to be reinstated to his former position as a Marketing Manager. In court however, at the end of his re-examination by his own counsel, indeed at the very end of the trial, he stated emphatically and without qualification that he only wanted compensation. The notes of evidence read as follows:
Q : What remedy are you seeking from the court?
A : Compensation.
Q : Apart from compensation, are you seeking only compensation?
A : Yes.
[3] Clearly, the claimant did not want his job back. In consequence the court ceases to have jurisdiction over the matter and cannot grant compensation in lieu of reinstatement. This is the legal position and the authority for it is Holiday Inn Kuching, Sarawak v. Elizabeth Lee Chai Siok , a case which is factually indistinguishable from the present case. I quote the words of Mr. Justice Haidar Mohd Noor J. (as then was):
.... As stated by me earlier the respondent in
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
