Back
2023 MarsdenLR 99
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
ACE HOLDINGS BHD – Appellant
Versus
NORAHAYU RAHMAD & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: WA-01(A)-83-02-2022]
The Industrial Court must hear claims referred by the Minister regardless of whether a reinstatement remedy is sought, ensuring that workmen's rights to a fair hearing are upheld.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Sections 20(1) and 20(3) - Jurisdiction of Industrial Court - Dismissal of claim for lack of jurisdiction due to absence of reinstatement remedy in Statement of Case is erroneous - Court reaffirmed that the Industrial Court must hear claims referred by the Minister regardless of the remedy sought - Appellant's reliance on previous case law distinguished based on facts - High Court's decision quashing Industrial Court's award upheld. (Paras 10, 11, 14, 20, 30)
(B) Judicial Review - Scope of review - High Court has the authority to quash decisions of Industrial Court when jurisdictional errors are identified, ensuring fair hearing of claims. (Paras 10, 14, 20)
Facts of the case:
The 1st Respondent claimed to be an employee of the Appellant, whose dismissal led to a claim for renewal commission fees. The Appellant contended she was an independent agent. The Industrial Court dismissed her claim for lack of jurisdiction based on the absence of a reinstatement remedy in her Statement of Case. (Paras 1-8)
Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the Industrial Court erred in dismissing the claim and ordered it to be heard on its merits, emphasizing the necessity of adjudicating claims referred by the Minister. (Paras 10-12)
Issues: Whether the Industrial Court can dismiss a workman's claim solely due to the lack of a reinstatement remedy in the Statement of Case when the claim has been referred by the Minister. (Paras 14-15)
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the Industrial Court must exercise its jurisdiction to hear claims referred by the Minister, regardless of whether a reinstatement remedy is specifically sought in the Statement of Case, as the purpose of the Industrial Relations Act is to provide effective remedies for employees. (Paras 20-21)
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background facts of the case (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. preliminary objections raised by appellant (Para 8) |
| 3. judicial review application and high court's decision (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. main issues for determination in the appeal (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. analysis of relevant legal principles and precedents (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. public policy considerations regarding workman's claims (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 7. binding effect of previous decisions (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 8. joint hearing approach endorsed (Para 30 , 31) |
A. Background
[1] The 1st respondent (1st Respondent) claimed that she had been appointed in 2018 by the appellant company (Appellant) to be the Appellant's Vice President. The Appellant however claimed that the 1st Respondent was not its employee but was instead an "independent agent" who had agreed to refer "high net worth" individuals to invest in its products and services in return for commission.
[2] By way of a letter dated 1 April 2019, the Appellant terminated the 1st Respondent's appointment with effect from 28 March 2019 (1st Respondent's Dismissal).
[3] The 1st Respondent filed Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No: WA-22NCvC-586-08/2019 on 20 August 2019 against, among others, the Appellant (Civil Suit). In the Civil Suit, the 1st Respondent had claimed for "renewal commission fees" amounting to RM1,149,680.00.
[4] On 11 April 2019, the 1st Respondent made a written representation to the Director General for Industrial Relations (DG) pursuant to s 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ( IRA ) to be reinstated in her former employment with the Appellant (1st Respondent's Representation).
[5] By way of a letter dated 29 August 2019, the DG informed the President of the Industrial Court (IC) that the Minister of Human Resources (Minister) had decided to refer the 1st Respondent's Representation to IC for an award (Minister's Reference).
[6] In IC, the 1st Respondent's Statement of Case (SOC) only applied for, among others, "full wages and benefits" from the date of the 1st Respondent's Dismissal. The SOC did not pray for a reinstatement of the 1st Respondent's former employment with the Appellant (Reinstatement Remedy).
[7] On 13 December 2019, the Civil Suit was struck out by the High Court without any liberty for the 1st Respondent to file a fresh suit [High Court's Striking Out Order (Civil Suit)]. The 1st Respondent did not appeal to the Court of Appeal against the High Court's Striking Out Order (Civil Suit).
[8] In IC:
(1) the Appellant raised two preliminary objections (2 POs) before the learned Chairlady, namely:
(a) the SOC was not properly e-filed and consequently, the proceedings in IC were defective (1st PO); and
(b) the SOC only prayed for monetary relief and did not apply for a Reinstatement Remedy. Hence, IC had no jurisdiction to hear the 1st Respondent's claim (2nd PO); and
(2) with regard to the 2 POs, the learned Chairlady directed the parties to file and serve:
(a) affidavits; and
(b) written submissions; and
(3) the IC:
(a) dismissed the 1st PO; and
(b) accepted the 2nd PO. Hence, the 1st Respondent's claim in the IC was dismissed for want of jurisdiction (IC's Award).
B. Proceedings In High Court
[9] On 18 May 2021, the 1st Respondent obtained leave of High Court to apply for a Judicial Review of IC's Award (1st Respondent's Judicial Review Application).
[10] The High Court allowed the 1st Respondent's Judicial Review Application on 20 January 2022 with the following orders:
(1) an order of certiorari was issued to quash IC's Award;
(2) a declaration is granted that IC's Award is invalid, null and void;
(3) a mandamus order was granted to direct another learned Chairperson of IC to hear the 1st Respondent's claim on the merits; and
(4) the Appellant shall bear costs of the 1st Respondent's Judicial Review Application (High Court's Decision).
[11] According to the High Court's Decision, among others:
(1) the learned Chairlady
