SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2004 MarsdenLR 592

INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
ALUMINIUM ALLOY CASTINGS SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
HO PENG LAN & ORS – Respondent
Award No. 1890 Of 2004 [Case No: 14/4-429/99]



AWARD

The dispute between the parties emanates from the dismissal of Ho Peng Lan and "2 Orang Perayu yang lain" viz . Thirunavukkarasu a/l Palaniappan Chethiar and Teong Seng Kiang ("the claimants") by Aluminium Alloy Castings SDN BHD ("the company") on 18 September 1998 allegedly without just cause or excuse.

Following several mentions in consequence of the ministerial reference, the case commenced hearing on 17 December 2003 in the presence of Mr. Steven Thiruneelakandan ("Steven") of Messrs Shook Lin & Bok, counsel for the company and Mr. Ramdhari @ Jai Ram ("Ramdhari") of Messrs Lobo & Associates, counsel for the claimants. At the close of the day's hearing, the case remained part heard.

On 23 June 2004 at the continued hearing of the case, Steven informed the court that approximately a week before he was notified of a change in the shareholder structure of the company which had a material bearing on the case. In order to allow the learned counsel to obtain the necessary instructions from his client respecting the continued hearing or otherwise of the case in light of the new development, and in the absence of any objection from Ramdhari, the court, on Steven's request, then fixed the case for mention on 30 August 2004.

Subsequently, the court was informed on 30 August 2004 that the parties were in the midst of negotiating a settlement of the dispute and that good progress had been made thus far. However, there still remained some outstanding matters that needed to be ironed out. Pursuant to the parties' request, the case was fixed for further mention on 21 September 2004. This was, however, followed by successive mentions on 24 September 2004, 22 October 2004, 9 November 2004 and 29 November 2004.

Ultimately, at the last mention of the case on 23 December 2004, Miss Genni Seah Loo Gen of Messrs Lobo & Associates who appeared for the claimants informed the court that the parties had arrived at an amicable solution of their dispute as per the Deed of Settlement dated 23 September 2004 and that they wished for the same to be recorded as a consent award. It was highlighted to the court that the parties' mutual settlement was evident and fortified by their respective signatures appearing on each and every page of the Deed of Settlement.

The aforesaid was confirmed by Mr. Brianjit Singh of Messrs Shook Lin & Bok on behalf of the company when the learned counsel reiterated that the parties had reached an amicable settlement as reflected in the said Deed of Settlement. Similarly, by their presence in court, the 3 claimants and the Chief Executive Officer of the company Encik Sulaiman Masrum who were all signatories to the Deed of Settlement also confirmed the same.

This court, in line with the wishes of the parties, accordingly handed down a consent award in terms of the Deed of Settlement dated 23 September 2004 entered into between the parties as annexed hereto (see annexure).

ANNEXURE ALUMINIUM ALLOY CASTINGS SDN BHD (Co. No. 268621K)DEED OF SETTLEMENT
This DEED OF SETTLEMENT is made on the day of 23 September 2004.
BETWEEN:
1.HO PENG LAN
(I/C No: 500517-02-5253)
11 A, Jalan SS20/14,
47400 Petaling Jaya,
Selangor Darul Ehsan.
2.THIRUNAVUKKARASU A/L PALANlAPPAN CHETHIAR
(I/C No: 391107-71-5219)
No: 84, Jalan Unta,
Berkeley Garden.
41150 Klang,
Selangor Darul Ehsan.

3.TEONG SENG KIANG
(I/C No: 580728-02-5643)
No: 51, Jalan Choo Lip Kung,
Taman Taynton View,
56000 Cheras,
Kuala Lumpur.
(hereinafter called the "Claimants") of the one part
AND
ALUMINIUM ALLOY CASTINGS SDN. BHD.
123A, Jalan SS 17/1A
Subang Jaya
47500 Petaling Jaya,
Selangor Darul Ehsan.
(hereinafter called the "Company") of the other part

(hereinafter called the "Company") of the other part

WHEREAS the claimants were previously the employees of the company and were dismissed from the company on the 18th of Sept 1998.

AND WHEREAS the claimants have instituted proceedings in the Kuala Lumpur Industrial court vide Industrial Case no 14/4-429/99 against the company.

AND WHEREAS the parties to the said disput


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top