Puan Fong Yoke Heong (the Complainant) lodged a complaint under section 56(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ("the Act") that LH Technology ("the Respondent") has failed to comply with Award No. 770 of 2008 which ordered that the Award sum be settled by 30.5.2008.

AWARD

This is a Complaint lodged by Puan Fong Yoke Heong (hereinafter referred to as "the Complainant") against LH Technology (hereinafter referred to as "the Respondent") under section 56(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 that the Respondent has failed to comply with Award No. 770/2008 which ordered that the Award sum shall be paid by the Respondent to the Complainant through her solicitors by 30.5.2008.

Brief Facts of the Case

The Industrial Court had handed down an Award on 30.4.2008 videAward No. 770 of 2008 in Case No. 18/4-1636/05 involving the same parties in the present proceedings. Subsequent to this Award No. 770 of 2008, the Respondent, LH Technology, had failed to comply to pay the Complainant as awarded resulting in a complaint being lodged by her on 10.6.2008 for the non-compliance of an Award of the Court under section 56(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (IRA 1967).

Submissions by both parties in brief

Counsel for the Complainant submitted that there is no special circumstances shown by the Respondent in this case. Respondent has filed for judicial review and has obtained leave to proceed from the High Court but there is no order to stay all other proceedings being granted by the High Court. He cited the cases of Lim Ban Seng & 6 Ors v. Bintang Plywood Sendirian Berhad [2006] 3 ILR 1894 and Choo Chee Siam v. Wong Brothers' Building Construction [2006] 1 ILR 465 to support his contention that a pending hearing for judicial review of an Award without a stay order from the High Court does not amount to special circumstances to justify the non-compliance of the Award by the company.

The Respondent is represented by its proprietor Mr. Hor Cheok Chee on the date of Hearing. On record, Respondent is represented by Messrs Ooi Lee & Co., advocates and solicitors but his solicitor did not turn up in Court on the hearing of this complaint. No reason was advanced as to their absence though this Court has not granted their request for an adjournment. Mr. Hor Cheok Chee has nevertheless informed this Court that he is prepared to proceed with the case in the absence of his solicitors. He then submitted that the High Court had fixed the judicial review for Hearing on 9.1.2009 which is a few days away and that he had deposited the sum of Award videAward No. 770 of 2008 with his solicitors as stakeholders; hence the money is secured. He contemplated that there will be complication in the issue of income tax and EPF in the event he wins his judicial review in the High Court if he is to comply with Award No. 770 of 2008.

Court's Findings:

Having heard the submissions by both parties and having perused all relevant documents filed herein, this Court agrees with the Complainant's submission that the hearing of the judicial review itself without an order of stay of proceedings from the High Court, does not constitute special circumstances under section 56 of the IRA 1967 to justify non-compliance of the Award by the Respondent. Lim Ban Seng & 6 Ors's case (supra) is followed. Further, the deposit of the sum of Award with the solicitors as stakeholders, to this Court, also does not constitute special circumstances for the non-compliance of the aforesaid Award. Similarly, any issue of income tax and EPF does not constitute special circumstances as it could be easily resolved by an order of the High Court whether it is ultimately in favour of the Complainant or the Respondent. In National Union of Hotel Bar & Restaurant Workers v. Seasian Hotel Sdn. Bhd. (Orchard Sun Penang) [1992] 3 CLJ (Rep) 115; [1992] 2 CLJ 865, "special circumstances" was defined by the Court as "to be special, the event must be something out of the ordinary, something uncommo