Award No. 104 of 1991 [5 APRIL 1991]

The claimant Encik Looh Weng Chong was dismissed on 28 December 1989 by the V-Pro Corporation (M) Sdn. Bhd. (the company). The dismissal was referred to this court by the Honourable Minister of Human Resources, the reference being signed on 24 January 1991.

The reference was transmitted to this court on 30 January 1991.

On 7 February 1991 under R.8(1) of the Industrial court Rules 1967 (the Rules) Form F was sent by A.R. registered post to the claimant to be present in court on 20 February 1991 for the case to be mentioned for the first time and a date to be fixed for hearing.

The A.R. registered card was acknowledged by the claimant and returned to this court on 14 February 1991.

However the claimant was absent on 20 February 1991.

The claimant was also notified by Form H on 7 February 1991 to file his statement of case within seven days of service of Form H. No statement of case was however filed. On 21 February 1991 another Form F under the rules was sent to the claimant by registered post fixing this case for further mention on 11 March 1991 at bilik mesyuarat, Jabatan

Perhubungan Perusahaan, Johor Bharu to facilitate the presence of the claimant, as he was resident in Kulai, Johor. However on 11 March 1991 the claimant was again absent, and neither was a statement of case filed.

This court has in a number of awards dealt with the position of claimants who are indifferent in pursuing their claims of unjust dismissals in the Industrial court with diligence. (See Award No's. 21/89 , 223/89 , 225/89 , 125/89, 124/90 ). In Award No. 223/89 the Industrial court

stated: The claimant having made representations that he was dismissed without just cause or excuse has now chosen to be indifferent and apathetic in pursuing the matter of his dismissal. In all the circumstances this court is of the opinion that this is a proper case to exercise its discretion to strike off the claimant as a party under s.29(a) of the Act for want of prosecution by the claimant. The claimant also failed to apply for extended time to file a statement of case, notwithstanding his absence in court.

With reference to the time granted to a claimant to file a statement of case, that: the Industrial court in Award No. 125/90 stated This requirement must be strictly complied with unless there are exceptionally good reasons to the contrary. The object of such a requirement must be quite obvious. It is to enable the proceedings to be conducted speedily and fairly and to avoid creating the sort of backlog in the Industrial Courts.

In short, it is there to save time and expense for all parties concerned. This court is under a social and public duty to make awards in all the cases that are referred to this court as soon as practicable.

However where a claimant has failed to be present in court or file a statement of case the impression created is that the claim has probably been settled or abandoned or that the claimant is plainly indifferent. The claimant has obviously by his conduct rejected the oppurtunity that was given to him to have his case heard.

In all the circumstances of this case this court exercised its discretion to strike off the claimant under s.29(1) of the Industrial Relation Act 1967 (the Act) and the case under s.29(g) of the Act .