James Foong J:

The plaintiff was an employee of the 2nd defendants until he was medically boarded out by the 2nd defendants on 30 October 1985. This was in pursuant to a finding dated 18 September 1985 made by a Medical Board (hereinafter shall be referred to the 1st Medical Board) constituted by the 2nd defendants. Consequent to this, the plaintiff applied to the 1st defendants for disability benefits under the Employees' Social Security Act 1969 (SOCSO Act in short). As a result of this application, another Medical Board (hereinafter shall be referred to the 2nd Medical Board) was constituted, and on 17 October 1986 this 2nd Medical Board recommended the plaintiff's claim be dismissed for reason that he did not qualify to be a person entitled to invalidity pension benefits in accordance with the provisions of the SOCSO Act. The plaintiff then appealed against this recommendation to an Appellate Medical Board which was constituted under the SOCSO Act and Regulations made thereunder. On 16 December 1987 this Appellate Medical Board dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and confirmed the recommendation of the 2nd Medical Board thus resulting in the plaintiff receiving no benefits under the SOCSO Act. These are the circumstances leading to this litigation before this Court.

In the plaintiff's statement of claim, the following are prayed for:

Against the 1st defendants;

(1) for a declaration that by virtue of the Medical Board (1st Medical Board) decision on 18 September 1985 obtained by the 2nd defendants that the plaintiff is suffering from invalidity which is deemed to be of permanent nature, incurable and is not likely to be cured and in reliance of which the 2nd defendants terminated the plaintiff services is within the meaning of the provisions under s.16 of the Employees' Social Security Act, 1969 (SOCSO Act) entitling the plaintiff to receive Invalidity Pension pursuant to s.17 of the Employees' Social Security Act, 1969 (SOCSO Act);

(2) for a determination that the 1st defendants are bound by the findings of the Medical Board (1st Medical Board) convened by the 2nd defendant on 18 September 1985;

Alternatively Against the 2nd defendant;

(i) for an order that the 2nd defendants do pay to the plaintiff said sum of RM51,768.75 (as calculated in the particulars which are, mainly salary from date of the plaintiff's termination of service with the 2nd defendant until the date he was officially supposed to retire deducting the gratuity he received);

(ii) alternatively, for a declaration that the termination of the plaintiff by the 2nd defendants, on medical grounds is null and void and of no effect, that the plaintiff is still a senior clerical officer of the 2nd defendant entitled to all wages benefits and seniority, effective from 30 October 1985 (the date the plaintiff's services with the 2nd defendant was terminated).

As can be seen from the above, the plaintiff's main claim against the 1st defendants is for invalidity pension under the SOCSO Act, which according to him should be based on the findings of the 1st Medical Board, and to be accepted by the 1st defendantsssssss.

The findings of the 1st Medical Board whose members were Dr.E.Peters and Dr.Dorairaji were as follows:

that the plaintiff is suffering from "Recurrence of Inguinal Hernia (Direct) with weak lower abdominal wall musoulative. Patient is reluctant to have surgery in view of the past failure. And that;

(a) the injury is permanent

(b) and this causes him not being able to carry out his duty as a senior clerical officer and that the patient be recommended to be medically boarded out.

Relying on these findings, the plaintiff submitted that this should be sufficient to qualify him for entitlement of invalidity pension under the SOCSO Act.

Section 15(a) of the SOCSO Act provides that an insured person (there being no dispute from all parties that the plaintiff is one), shall be entitled to;

periodical payments to an insured person in case of in