Mohd Noor Abdullah J:

This is an appeal arising from the decision of the chairman of the Social Security Appellate Board, hereinafter referred to as "the board" who decided that the respondent, Encik Rahim bin Darus was suffering from an invalidity and was therefore entitled to the benefit of invalidity pension under the Employees' Social Security Act 1969. This appeal is brought by the Director General of the Social Security Organisation, hereinafter referred to as "SOCSO" under s. 91(2) of the Acton an issue which involves a substantial question of law.

In his memorandum of appeal, the appellant raised the following grounds:

(1) Whether the Social Security Appellate Board erred on point of law in deciding that the respondent suffered from invalidity under s. 16(1) of the Act, contrary to the findings of the Medical Board and the Appellate Medical Board;

(2) Whether the respondent is suffering from invalidity or not is a question to be decided by the Medical Board and the Appellate Medical Board and not the Social Security Appellate Board.

Facts Of The Case

The applicant/respondent was employed by Acidchem (M) Sdn Bhd in Seberang Perai, Pulau Pinang as a plant operator earning a salary of RM704.40 per month. He was born in 1944 and was 50 years old at the material date. His job endured the carrying of heavy loads. He had to carry chemical bags weighing about 20kg per bag and chemical containers weighing about 60kg per container through a spiral staircase to the third floor of his factory about 60 feet high and discharged them into a tank. He had been in the employment of the said company for 14 years until he was medically boarded on the recommendation of Dr. Tan Chong Siang, the Medical Superintendent, Bagan Specialist Centre, Seberang Perai. He filed an application for invalidity pension citing the specialist report in support of his application. The specialist report states:

This is to confirm that the above as a case of Thyrotoxicosis with heart failure.

He is unable to continue his employment as a machine operator.

SOCSO then referred the respondent to the medical board for an invalidity certificate. The board confirmed that the respondent was a "patient of CCF and thyrotoxicosis controlled by medication". However, the board did not certify that he was suffering from invalidity.

The respondent then appealed to the appellate medical board, which sat and confirmed the diagnosis of thyrotoxicosis but indicated that this was controlled with medication. The appellate board found further that there was no evident heart failure presently and confirmed that the respondent was not suffering from invalidity.

Based on these findings, SOCSO rejected the respondent's claim for invalidity pension. The respondent was dissatisfied with the decision and he appealed further to the Social Security Appellate Board ("the board") which subsequently made a finding that the respondent was entitled to invalidity pension, contrary to the medical finding of fact by the medical board and the appellate medical board.

The chairman of the board elucidated further facts that the respondent was without a job for one year during which period he did odd jobs as a gardener in his neighbourhood for a meagre income of about RM200 per month. The respondent explained that he still felt weak and unable to perform any work expected of a person of his age. He was still on medication for his ailing heart. Under the circumstances he maintained that he was an invalid and persisted in his claim for invalidity pension.

It was submitted by learned counsel for SOCSO that the issue before the board was whether the respondent was suffering from invalidity or not, and that this issue had been decided by the medical board and the appellate medical board and that the board had no jurisdiction. The respondent appeared before the board. He looked frail and weak. The board summoned a member of the board to appear and furnish additional information and to explain the di