The Industrial Court can stay proceedings in favor of High Court suits addressing identical factual issues to maintain consistency and prevent duplicative judgments.

Minister's Reference

[1] This is a Reference dated 23 October 2009 by the Honourable Minister of Human Resources under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 for an Award in respect of a dispute arising out of the purported dismissal of Colleen Jee Siaw Ling @ Jee Wan Ling (referred to as "the claimant") by Walton International Property Group (M) Sdn Bhd (referred to as "the respondent/company") on 8 July 2008.

The Company's Application For Stay Of Proceedings

[2] On 15 April, 2010 the company took out this application to stay the claimant's claim in this case until the company's civil suit in Kuala Lumpur High Court Suit No: S6-22-827-2008 ("the suit") has been heard and finally determined. The said High Court suit was filed on 7 August, 2008 while this Reference was dated 23 October, 2009. It was affirmed by the company's Chief Operation Officer that no trial date for the suit had been fixed yet. It was also said by company's counsel that an application for summary judgement had been made by the company in the said Suit and that it was scheduled for hearing last 23 February 2010. As to what happened to that application, counsel could only surmise that it must have been disallowed because that suit was fixed for case management next month 15 June, 2010.

[3] In that suit, a copy of which was produced before this Court, the company is suing 5 defendants, and the claimant in our case (Colleen Jee Siaw Ling @ Jee Wan Ling), is one of the 5 defendants.

[4] The grounds advanced by the company for this stay application are:

(i) The civil suit and the claimant's claim herein involve the same set of facts and the same issues to be determined. As such a stay of these proceedings would prevent a duplicity of proceedings;

(ii) The civil suit involves 5 defendants (of which the claimant is one of them) and will therefore have a broader scope in terms of findings of fact that would be made, and that the findings made in respect of related issues may have a bearing on this case; and

(iii) This Industrial Court as an inferior tribunal would be bound by the findings made at the High Court, and not vice versa.

[5] The claimant has opposed the stay application on a number of grounds. Counsel for the claimant has also raised preliminary objection to the application. I find it expedient to deal with the main opposition and the preliminary objection together.

Claimant's Objection To The Stay Application

[6] If I understand claimant's counsel's submissions correctly, the following are the grounds of the claimant's objection to this stay application:

(i) That the company should have taken out a judicial review in the High Court to quash the Minister's decision to refer this case to this Court for an award pursuant to his powers under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 . However, contends learned counsel for the claimant, O 53 r 3(6) of the Rules of the High 1980 gives only 40 days within which a party can apply for leave to quash that decision. claimant is late, contends counsel, and is trying to circumvent the said O 53 r 3(6) of the Rules of the High by applying for stay before this Court.

(ii) The claimant in the said Kuala Lumpur High Court suit is praying for restraining orders and relief. Counsel contends that there is doubt whether these orders obtained in the High Court of Malaya (where the suit is heard) would be capable of enforcement here in Sarawak, given the different jurisdictions of the two High Courts.

(iii) The company is relying on s 29 Industrial Relations Act, 1967 to support this application because this Court has the power to "do all such things as are necessary or expedient for the expeditious determination of the matter before it". Contends counsel, staying proceedings especially staying them sine die is not consistent with the purpose of the Act, that is, an expeditions determination of the matter before it.

(iv) There are no common issues of facts as between the suit and this case.

(v) The claimant in asking f