Back
2023 MarsdenLR 2289
INDUSTRIAL COURT PENANG
WAN HAMIDAH MOHAMED NOR – Appellant
Versus
ROYALE SIGNATURE HOTEL SDN BHD & ORS – Respondent
Award No: 1288 Of 2023 [Case No: 18/1-1024/20]
The court affirmed that non-compliance with an award under the Industrial Relations Act is enforceable, and estoppel principles prevent a company from denying employer status after leading the complainant to believe otherwise.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 56(1) and 56(2) - Non-compliance with an award - Complainant sought enforcement of Award No 829-2020 for payment of RM10,000 by the company - Company claimed it was not the complainant's employer - Court emphasized that the enforcement function is distinct from interpretive functions and noted the company was estopped from denying employer status due to previous conduct. (Paras 6, 18, 22, 30, 32)
Facts of the case:
The complainant alleged that the company failed to comply with the award requiring payment of RM10,000 within 30 days, while the company contended it was not the complainant's employer at the relevant time.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the company and its directors were liable for the payment as they were deemed to be the complainant's employer based on estoppel principles.
Issues: The main issues included whether the company was the complainant's employer and the enforceability of the award against them.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the complainant had established non-compliance with the award and that the company's denial of employer status was an afterthought, emphasizing the enforcement role of the court under the IRA.
Result: The court ordered the company and its directors to pay the complainant RM10,000 within 30 days.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint of non-compliance under ira 1967 (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. complainant's claim for payment (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. enforcement function of the industrial court (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. submissions regarding employer status (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. testimony and cross-examination of the complainant (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. judicial notice and employer identification (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. principles of estoppel and industrial jurisprudence (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 8. finding of non-compliance with the award (Para 30 , 31) |
[1] This is a complaint of non-compliance made under s 56(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (IRA 1967) by Wan Hamidah binti Mohamed Nor (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant') for an order of non-compliance in relation to Award No 829-2020 dated 16 June 2020 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Award').
[2] The complaint was lodged by the complainant on the ground that paras 55 and 56 of the said award has not been complied with by the company where this court had ordered the company to pay the complainant the sum RM10,000, less statutory deductions (if any) within 30 days from the date the said award was handed down.
[3] Pursuant to Award No 1595-2020, the three directors of the company namely, Tang Wooi Chon, Tang Woan Rou and Chunsi Kudkumkong were joined as parties to the action. The joinder application (Encl 9) was uncontested by them as they were absent on the day of the hearing of the application for joinder.
The Complainant's Case
[4] In her statement of case dated 21 August 2020, the complainant claimed that the company failed to make any payment within the stipulated time of 30 days and hence the company has failed to comply with the said award. The complainant therefore prays to this court for the compliance of the said award and for an order directing the company to effect payment of the sum of RM10,000 to the complainant forthwith.
The Company's Case
[5] In their statement of reply dated 16 March 2023, the company pleaded and averred that the said Award is not enforceable against the company and its three directors as they are not the rightful employers of the complainant at the material time. The company alleged that Royale Signature International Hotel Sdn Bhd, is the rightful employer of the complainant and not the company, Royal Signature Hotel Sdn Bhd as named in the reference.
The Law On Non-Compliance Of An Award
[6] Section 56(2) of the IRA 1967 provides that upon receipt of the complaint, the court may:
(i) make an order directing any party:
(a) to comply with any term of the award or collective agreement; or
(b) to cease or desist from doing any act in contravention of any term of the award or collective agreement;
(ii) make such order as it deems fit to make proper rectification or restitution for any contravention of any term of such award or collective agreement; or
(iii) make such an order as it considers desirable to vary or set aside upon special circumstances any term of the award or collective agreement.
[7] It is trite law that the function of the Industrial court in a complaint of non-compliance of an award under s 56 of the IRA 1967 is purely an enforcement function and not an interpretive one. His Lordship Harun Hashim SCJ in Dragon & Phoenix Berhad & Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Perusahaan Membuat Tekstil & Pakaian Pulau Pinang & Anor ; [1990] 2 ILR 515 had this to say on the role of the Industrial court:
In a complaint of non-compliance with any term of a collective agreement or award under s 56 of the Industrial Relation Act, the Industrial court should, as a general rule, look at the terms of the contract by confining itself to within the four walls of the collective agreement or Award and decide whether the term has or has not been complied with. It is a purely enforcement function. It should not embark on an expedition to examine the provisions of the Employment Act 1955 in order to determine the meaning of the term c
