: The plaintiff was employed as a Handyman Group A in Shell Malaysia Trading Sdn Bhd, the defendant, with a basic salary of RM432.

On 12 December 1983, he was detained by the police at the Ayer Tawar Police Station under the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crimes) Ordinance 1969.

Thereafter from 8 February 1984, he was detained at the Pusat Pemulihan Akhlak, Pulau Jerejak, Pulau Pinang for a period of two years. After his release with effect from 9 February 1986, he was subjected to a restriction order for another two years.

While under detention, the plaintiff informed the defendant of his whereabouts and status, vide a letter dated 17 March 1984.

By a letter dated 3 April 1984, the defendant terminated the plaintiffs employment on ground of frustration of the employment contract. The letter reads as follows:

Encik Sathiaval a/l Maruthamuthu

O/T PJ 39/84

No KP 5934009 (Biru)

d/a En Abdul Ghani bin Salleh 3 April 1984

b/p Penguasa Kanan

Pusat Pemulihan Akhlak

Pulau Jerejak

Pulau Pinang

Dear Mr Sathiaval,

FRUSTRATION OF CONTRACT

We have received your letter of 17 March 1984, informing us of your

present whereabouts and your position. We have also received a similar

letter from the Pusat Pemulihan Akhlak in Pulau Jerejak confirming your

detention for a two-year period.

While we appreciate your problem and sympathize with you, we are unable

to continue your employment with us as your services will not be

available to us until February 1986. As such, your services are hereby

terminated with immediate effect.

We shall write to you in due course informing you of all the monies due

to you. In the meantime, we take this opportunity to thank you for your

service with us.

Yours faithfully,

for SHELL MALAYSIA TRADING SDN BHD

lsquo;Original Signed by

Victor Foo

cc MFT/32 -- Further to our memo dated 29 February 1984, we enclose

herewith record cards for the abovenamed for

calculation of his benefits. Kindly include

proportionate bonus calculated up to 31 December 1983.

His leave balance is nil. Please pay him termination

benefits.

In this suit, the plaintiff is seeking:

(a) suatu perintah deklarasi bahawa penamatan dan/atau pembuangan

kerja plaintif adalah salah di sisi undang-undang dan adalah

pemecahan, kontrak batal dan tidak sah dan tidak berefek;

(b) suatu perintah deklarasi bahawa plaintif masih lagi dalam tempoh

pekerjaan dengan defendan tanpa apa-apa kemungkiran perkhidmatan

dan adalah berhak kepada segala-gala gaji, elaun dan kenaikan;

(c) satu perintah bahawa defendan membayar kepada plaintif

segala-segala gaji, elaun dan kenaikan yang tertunggak semenjak

Disember 1983 sehingga dikembalikan semula; dan

(d) dalam alternatif, pihak defendan membayar segala-gala faedah

penamatan dan segala-gala faedah yang lain kepada plaintif.

The defence is two-pronged. First, the defendant contends that the declaratory remedies sought by the plaintiff are misconceived in law and are not available in the High Court. Secondly, it contends that even assuming that they are available, the contract of employment has been frustrated by the plaintiffs detention.

The facts as stated are not in dispute. The parties have decided not to call any witness to give evidence. They have also identified and framed for the determination of the court the following agreed statement of issues:

(1) Was the plaintiffs contract of service with the defendant frustrated

by virtue of his detention at Pusat Pemulihan Akhlak, Pulau Jerejak with

effect from 8 February 1984, thereby discharging the defendants from further

performance of the said contract of employment?

(2) In the light of the above, was the termination of the plaintiffs

contract of employment on 3 April 1984 wrongful and unlawful?

In the event that the