Wan Hamzah SCJ:

The appellant was an employee of the respondent, Harper Gilfillan [1980] Sdn. Bhd. (the Company), on a monthly salary. After working with the Company for about 22½ years he was retrenched on 1 June 1983. The company paid him a certain amount of money as termination benefits under the Employment (Termination and Lay-Off Benefits) Regulations 1980, but he complained to the Labour Department that the computation of the termination benefits by the Company was incorrect and the payment was short of the correct amount. The Penolong Pengarah Buruh held an inquiry into the dispute under the Employment Act. The appellant's ground of complaint relates to the interpretation of reg. 6 and the meaning of "wages". That regulation in so far as it is relevant to this case reads:

6.(1) Subject to the provisions of the Regulations, the amount of termination or lay-off benefits payment to which an employee is entitled in any case shall not be less than:

(a) ...

(b) ...

(c) twenty days' wages for every year of employment under a continuous contract of service with the employer if he has been employed by that employer for five years or more,

and pro-rata as respect an incomplete year, calculated to the nearest month.

(2) For the purposes of this regulation "wages" shall have the meaning assigned thereto under s. 2(1) of the Employment Act and "a day's wages" shall be computed in such a manner so as to give the employee his average true day's wages calculated over the period of twelve completed months' service immediately preceding the relevant date.

In s. 2(1) of the Act there is the following definition:

"wages" means all remuneration which is payable to an employee for work done in respect of his contract of service but does not include:

(a) the value of any house accommodation or the supply of any food, fuel, light or water or medical attendance, or of any approved amenity or approved service;

(b) any contribution paid by the employer on his own account to any pension fund, superannuation scheme, retrenchment, termination, lay-off or retirement scheme, thrift scheme, or any other fund or scheme established for the benefit or welfare of the employee;

(c) any travelling allowance or the value of any travelling concession;

(d) any sum payable to the employee to defray special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment;

(e) any gratuity payable on discharge or retirement; or

(f) any annual bonus or any part of any annual bonus which is not payable under the contract of service.

It was argued on behalf of the appellant that in view of the words "work done" contained in the above definition, rest days (i.e., Saturdays and Sundays) should be excluded from the twelve completed months' service in the computation of average true day's wages under reg. 6(2) on the ground that no work was done on the rest days, whereas the company contended that the rest days should be included. With the total number of days in the twelve completed months decreased by the number of rest days, the amount of average true day's wages would be greater than the amount calculated with rest days included in the total number of days in the twelve completed months. The Penolong Pengarah Buruh agreed to the appellant's contention and accordingly the award of termination benefits which he made under reg. 6(1)(c) was greater than the amount calculated and paid by the Company. The Company appealed to the High Court, and the High Court disagreed with the Penolong Pengarah Buruh and held that the rest days should not be excluded.

Before us it was again contended on behalf of the appellant that a monthly paid employee is not paid wages in respect of his rest days, and he is paid in respect of five days of work in each week. Reliance was also placed on a passage in the judgment of the Chief Justice of Singapore in the unreported case of Union Carbide Singapore Private Limited v. M.P. Gindon Nair, which reads:

... his monthly salary is computed on the