The strict adherence to procedural timelines in judicial reviews is essential and non-compliance leads to lack of jurisdiction.

[1] The applicant was previously the 2nd respondent's Chief Stewardess since 1980. On 22 July 2014, the 2nd respondent terminated the applicant's employment on the basis of disappointment of contract. Thereafter on 24 January 2015, the applicant received a letter dated 12 January 2015 from the 1st respondent stated that the applicant's representation on her termination should not be referred to the Industrial Court. Dissatisfied with the decision, the applicant filed the application amongst others, the applicant prayed for:

1.1 An order of certiorari against the 1st respondent's decision by its letter dated 12 January 2015,

1.2 A declaration that the application is still persist as the 2nd respondent's employee without demotion and salary reduction and other benefits,

1.3 In alternative, that the applicant's representation to the Pengarah Jabatan Perhubungan Perusahaan Selangor had been filed on 4 August 2015 and referred to the Industrial Court.

[2] Subsequent after filing the application on 9 June 2015, the applicant filed an application for enlargement of time on 12 January 2015 as the application was at least more than one month out of time.

[3] After perusing the cause papers, the written submissions and upon hearing oral submissions, I have on 21 January 2016 dismissed the applicant's application for enlargement of time. My reasons are as follows.

Analysis And Findings

[4] The counsel for the applicant in his affidavit sworn on 6 November 2015 (encl 7) submitted that the delay was genuinely due to technical problem on the Court e-filing system. The counsel further explained that he has actually filed the application on 13 April 2015 at 3.39pm and was given the Case No: 25-0904-2015 (first case) by the Seremban E-filing Counter.

[5] However on June 2015, the counsel received a telephone call from the Shah Alam High Court informing him that the application was incomplete without the application and only the affidavit, and instructed the counsel to refile the application.

[6] The counsel further submitted that he had tried to follow the instruction, however, the application was rejected by the e-filing system in Seremban. As for that reason, the counsel refiled all the cause papers, resulting a new case number was given for this case 25-21-06-2015 (second case).

[7] In fact, the counsel also explained that he had personally referred this matter to the Senior Assistant Registrar (SAR) at the Shah Alam High Court and was given the confirmation by the SAR that the second case is the same with the first case and the second case was not caught by time frame of three months. (The counsel's sworn statements as at paras 4 until 11 in encl 7).

[8] As usual, this application was opposed by both of the respondents.

[9] The Federal Counsel for the 1st respondent and the counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that the applicant must abide with time frame laid down by the Rules of Court 2012. Failure to comply with the requirement is totally fatal.

[10] Both of the respondent's counsels also submitted that the only reason for the delay on part of the application was not a cogent reason to allow the extension on her behalf.

[11] The procedure relating to the filing of a judicial review application is set out in O 53 of the Rules of 2012 (" ROC "). Under the , the time frame to apply for judicial review is within three months. O 53 r 3(6) and (7) of provides as follows:

"(6) An application for judicial review shall be made promptly and in any event within three month from the date when the grounds of the application first arose or when the decision is first communicated on the applicant.

(7) Th