Back
2011 MarsdenLR 2808
ROSLAN MAT NOR
LEA YUEN POK – Appellant
Versus
DYSON MANUFACTURING SDN BHD – Respondent
The Industrial Court has no jurisdiction to suspend proceedings pending resolution of parallel civil proceedings as no statutory authority supports such action.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act, 1967 - Section 29(g) - Courts' power to stay proceedings - A respondent's application to suspend proceedings in the Industrial Court based on overlaps with a civil suit was rejected, as it was determined that the Industrial Court possesses no express authority for such a stay, as indicated by case law references. (Paras 3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 16)
(B) Jurisdiction - The power to stay proceedings can arise under statutory law or inherent jurisdiction, but must be explicitly provided or necessarily implied within the statute governing the court. (Paras 7, 10, 12)
(C) Overlapping Issues - The mere presence of overlapping issues in two forums does not automatically necessitate a stay of proceedings; it is essential for both proceedings to continue unless an overt conflict arises that prejudices fairness or justice. (Paras 11, 14, 16)
Facts of the case:
The respondent sought to stay proceedings in the Industrial Court pending the resolution of a civil suit involving the same parties and facts. The court reviewed various legal principles and authority on overlaps in jurisdiction.
Findings of Court:
The Industrial Court lacks the explicit authority to suspend proceedings, and continuing both actions promotes judicial efficiency.
Issues: Whether the Industrial Court has the jurisdiction to order a stay pending a civil suit; whether the issues in both courts are sufficiently similar to warrant suspension of the Industrial Court proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the Industrial Court operates independently from civil courts and that the absence of statutory authority for suspension of proceedings, combined with the interests of justice, dictated the continuation of the case.
Result: The application to stay proceedings was dismissed, and hearing scheduled for 20.09.2011.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual basis for application. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. consequences of proceeding with overlapping cases. (Para 4 , 7) |
| 3. court's authority to stay proceedings. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. interpretation of statutory provisions. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. implied jurisdiction and its applicability. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. distinction of issues in separate courts. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 7. overlapping jurisdictions do not constitute duplicity. (Para 14 , 15) |
1. Pihak Responden telah memohon kepada Mahkamah ini supaya diberikan suatu perintah agar kes ini digantung atau ditangguhkan pendengarannya sehingga penyelesaian kes Guaman Sivil no. MT3-23-3-2009 di Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya di Johor Bahru. Alasan permohonan Pihak Responden dapat dilihat di dalam notis permohonan yang diperturunkan dalam bahasa asalnya seperti berikut:
"The grounds in supporting this Application are as follows:-
(a) The matter herein and the Civil Suit involves the same issues and facts which includes but is not limited to the facts in relation to the Claimants dismissal as has been pleaded by both parties;
(b) As such, in order to avoid inconsistent finding of facts, it is better to stay and/or postpone and/or adjourn the hearing sine die pending the disposal of the Civil Suit. Otherwise, should the Industrial Court proceed with the Hearing of this case and find in favour of the Claimant but the should the High Court subsequently find in favour of the Company, or vice versa, this would result in total confusion among the litigants."
2. Apa yang dapat difahami daripada alasan permohonan tersebut ialah terdapat prosiding di Mahkamah Tinggi yang melibatkan fakta yang sama dengan prosiding di Mahkamah Perusahaan. Bagi mendapat gambaran yang jelas berkenaan perkara ini adalah wajar sekiranya Mahkamah merujuk kepada afidavit yang menyokong permohonan ini yang difailkan oleh Simranjit Kaur Gill yang merupakan peguam bagi Pihak Responden serta meneliti eksibit "SG-5" iaitu pernyataan pembelaan dan tuntutan balas dalam kes Guaman Sivil no : 23-2-2009 yang merupakan Pihak Menuntut di dalam kes ini di perenggan 21.0 seperti berikut:
"21.0 Defendan mengulangi dan menegaskan bahawa Plaintif telah bertindak secaramala fide di dalam:-
(a) menggantung Defendan daripada kerja secara lisan pada 4.6.2009 dan secara tak sah menghalang Defendan daripada mengambil barang-barang kepunyaannya iaitu satu beg komputer yang mengandungi paspot antarabangsa Defendan, slip-slip pembayaran bank, dokumen-dokumennya dan cermin matanya;
(b) secara tak sah menahan barang-barang kepunyaan Defendan tersebut sehingga 10.6.2009;
(c) secara tak sah dan tanpa kebenaran Defendan mengambil salinan-salinan dokumen-dokumen yang terkandung di dalam beg komputer itu;
(d) meneruskan penggantungan kerja Defendan dan mengadakan satu soal siasat domestic pada 2.7.2009 terhadap Defendan dan seterusnya memecat Defendan daripada jawatannya sebagai Pengurus Peralatan Plaintif pada 10.7.2009 walaupun Plaintif telah memperolehi keterangan daripada pembekal- pembekalnya pada 30.6.2009 dan 1.7.2009 bahawa syarikat- syarikat tersebut tidak pernah memberi apa-apa wang rahsia atau wang secara tak sah kepada Defendan;
(e) membawa tindakan ini dan memperolehi satu Perintah Injunksi Ex Parte pada 4.8.2009
(i) tanpa memberi "full and frank disclosure" dalam permohonan mereka;
(ii) mengemukakan keterangan salah dan/atau mengelirukan di dalam permohonan mereka;
(iii) tidak mendedahkan perkara-perkara penting dan material dalam permohonan mereka."
3. Sementara itu di Mahkamah Perusahaan, Pihak Menuntut di dalam pernyataan kesnya di perenggan 6 menyatakan bahawa dua orang pegawai syarikat pada 04.06.2009 telah memaklumkan kepada beliau bahawa Pihak Menuntut telah digantung kerja dan tidak dibenarkan mengambil barang-barang peribadinya. Ini dapat dilihat di dalam perenggan 6 pernyataan kes seperti berikut:
"6. Pada 4.6.2009 dua pegawai daripada syarikat tersebut Martin Bowen dan Martin McCourt telah secara lisan memberitahu Plaintif bahawa P
