The court affirmed that the Institute is a Government agency under the Industrial Relations Act, thus the Industrial Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the Claimant's representation.

S Nantha Balan JCA:

Introduction

[1] The main issue in this appeal is whether the Appellant, Institut Integriti Malaysia ("the Institute") could rely on s 52 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ("the Act"), to contend that the Industrial Court of Malaysia did not have the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine the representation that was made by the 1st respondent, Puan Roziah Harun ("the Claimant") under s 20(1) of the Act that she had been dismissed by the Institute without just cause or excuse. The related issue is whether the Institute's contention as to the Industrial Court 's lack of jurisdiction per s 52 of the Act may be taken up by way of an application to the Industrial Court under s 29(fa) of the Act, or whether the Institute ought to have applied by way of Judicial Review to quash the decision by the Director General of Industrial Relations (per s 20(3) of the Act) to refer the Claimant's representation under s 20(1) of the Act to the Industrial Court for adjudication.

Brief Facts

[2] The Claimant was at all material times an employee of the Institute. The Institute is a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1965 (now Companies Act 2016) as a company limited by guarantee. The Claimant commenced employment with the Institute on 1 November 2007. The Claimant is alleged to have committed serious misconduct. The Institute dismissed the Claimant from employment. Her last position in the Institute was "Penolong Pengarah Kanan (Projek Khas)" and her last date of employment was 15 July 2020.

[3] At the outset, it is necessary to state that this appeal is not concerned with whether the Claimant had committed misconduct warranting dismissal or the merits of the Claimant's representation under s 20(1) of the Act (which is under Part VI of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ) that she had been dismissed by the Institute without just cause or excuse. The Claimant's representation was referred by the Director General of Industrial Relations to the Industrial Court for adjudication via Industrial Court Case No. 14/41675/21 ("the Case"). After the requisite pleadings had been filed, namely Claimant's Statement of Case dated 2 July 2021, the Institute's Statement in Reply dated 3 September 2021 and the Claimant's Rejoinder dated 30 September 2021, the Institute relied on s 52 of the Act and filed an application dated 12 October 2021 pursuant to s 29(fa) and s 29(g) of the Act ("the s 52 application") seeking (1) that the Case be struck off; and /or (2) any other reliefs or order that the Industrial Court deems fit and proper.

[4] Essentially, the Institute contended that the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction as they are a Government agency. The Institute relied, inter alia, on a letter issued by the Prime Minister's Office ("PMO") dated 24 January 2007 which states that the Institute is an agency within the PMO. The letter reads relevantly as "Institut Integriti Malaysia (IIM) adalah sebuah agensi Kerajaan sepenuhnya yang diletakkan di bawah pentadbiran Jabatan Perdana Menteri."

[5] According to the Institute, the Industrial Court lacked jurisdiction pursuant to s 52 of the Act. Section 52 reads as follows; "(1) Parts II, III, IV, V and VI shall not apply to any Government service or to any service of any statutory authority or to any workman employed by Government or by any statutory authority." The Institute's grounds for the s 52 application are summarised as follows:

(a) That the Institute serves the Government through the Prime Minister's Department;

(b) That the Institute is a Government agency and part of the National Centre for Governance, Integrity and Anti Corruption ("GIACC") which is a department in the Prime Minister's Office ("PMO");

(c) That the Industrial Court lacks the threshold jurisdiction to hear and/or want of jurisdiction to hear and determine this reference to its completion.

(d) That the Institute is not within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 as