The dispute is over the alleged dismissals of the five claimants by the company on 29 June 1994.

The claimants allege that they were employed by the company as factory workers. They contend that they were dismissed without just cause and excuse in flagrant violation of the rules of natural justice. Therefore they pray for reinstatement to their former jobs without loss of any wages, seniority, service or benefits of any kind.

The pivotal pleading of the company in the statement of reply is that the claimants were never employed by the company but were employees of an independent contractor.

The facts show that one Encik Yahya bin Abdullah (COW1) who was a registered contractor made a written contract with the company to supply labour as seen in exh. CO1 dated 15 November 1989. COW1 supplied the company with the workers for the Body Preparation Section and he paid them based on piece rate. He also made EPF and SOCSO contributions for the workers. When COW1 ceased to be a contractor the company invited applicants from its employees who were keen to take over COW1's position as contractor.

In the meantime during the period when there was no contractor the company made an arrangement with these workers to carry on with their work until another contractor was found to take over the contract for the supply of labour in the Body Preparation Section. By 23 June 1994, one Ravi a/l S. Suppiah (COW2) had taken over the COW1's contract. Following his engagement as the contractor, COW2 offered the workers, including the claimants, at the Body Preparation Section the same terms and conditions of service as those of the previous contracts under COW1. As there was no positive response from the claimants a final warning was issued to them from COW2 to report for duty on 28 June 1994, failing which they would be refused entry into the Body Preparation Section as from 29 June 1994. On 29 June 1994 the workers of Body Preparation Section turned up at the factory but however were refused entry by the company's security guard.

It is the evidence of COW1 that the claimants were his workers when he was the contractor and that he made EPF and SOCSO contributions on their behalf. Besides that he also paid the company RM5 pe person towards administrative costs. He further explained that he decided the quality control and he paid his workers based on piece rate.

COW2 testified that he initially became a contractor in 1985. His contract at that time was to provide workers for the service of loading and unloading. He stated that he was responsible for the workers, he contributed to EPF for them and he had the power to sack them. He asserted that the company had no control over the workers. He said that he was paid by the company and in turn he paid the workers. COW2 attested further that in 1994 he took over from COW1, the contractor for the Body Preparation Section and it was a condition of his contract that he absorb the existing workers who numbered eight in that section. COW2 said that he gave these workers letters of offer and they were to confirm their acceptance and to report for work on 27 June 1994. However they failed to signify their acceptance and although they came on 27 June 1994 they did not perform any work. As a consequence COW2 wrote letters to all the workers including those to the five claimants (Exhs. CO12A to CO12E). The letters warned the claimants that if they did not accept the offers then they would not be allowed to enter the Body Preparation

Section from 29 June 1994. Subsequently COW2 took steps to prevent the workers from going into the said section on 29 June 1994. COW2 asserted that this was his own decision since they had refused to be his workers.

The evidence of Mr. Yap Yoon Chin (COW3), who was an administrative officer of the company at the material time is that the contractor employed the workers and fixed their salaries. The contractor also had the ultimate power to discipline and dismiss his workers although the company's Pe