HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
HOTEL JAYA PURI BHD – Appellant
Versus
NATIONAL UNION OF HOTEL BAR & RESTAURANT WORKERS & ANOR – Respondent
[Originating Motion No: 90 Of 1978]
[1] This Originating Motion is an application by Hotel Jaya Puri Bhd (in this judgment referred to as "the Hotel") for an order of certiorari to quash an award made against it on 1 August 1978, by the President of the Industrial Court ordering the Hotel to pay compensation of two months salaries plus fixed allowances in favour of workmen employed in the business of Jaya Puri Chinese Garden Restaurant Sdn Bhd (referred to as "the Restaurant").
[2] The Hotel is a company incorporated on 16 November 1973, and the Restaurant is also a company incorporated on 31 July 1974, and is a fully owned subsidiary of the Hotel. There were 56 workers of various categories employed in the business of the Restaurant. These workers are members of a trade union known as the National Union of Hotel, Bar and Restaurant Workers (referred to as "the Union") which was accorded recognition both by the Hotel and the Restaurant on 12 July 1975 and 3 July 1975, respectively. Subsequently, the Union signed two separate three year Collective Agreements with the Hotel on 30 October 1975 and with the Restaurant on 1 February 1976. The Collective Agreements were duly recognized by the Industrial Court in accordance with s 16 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967, and as such became binding on the parties thereto by virtue of s 17. The business of the Restaurant was carried on at the Hotel's premises which was rented to the Restaurant. The Restaurant commenced business on 30 July 1974 but due to financial losses closed the business on 31 August 1976. Thereafter, the premises was leased by the Hotel to Rodgewood Enterprises Sdn Bhd on 15 September 1976 for a three year term at an annual rental of RM360,000. Rodgewood Enterprises Sdn Bhd use the premises to run a restaurant business under the name of Arc En Ciel. This Company is not in the group of the Hotel and the Restaurant. It is entirely separate.
[3] Following the closure of business by the Restaurant, a dispute arose between the Union and the Restaurant on account of the closure and the termination of service of 56 employees. This dispute was referred by the Minister of Labour to the Industrial Court for its decision on 7 September 1976 and the reference described the dispute as between the Union and the Restaurant "mengenai penutupan syarikat dan penamatan perkhidmatan pekerja seramai 56 orang." The reference was subsequently registered in the Industrial Court as Case No 166/76.
[4] In its statement of case submitted to the Industrial Court, the Union alleged that the workers were employees of the Hotel and that they were dismissed and not retrenched as alleged by the Restaurant. The Union described the dispute as one "over the dismissal of 44 workers in the Restaurant", whose names were furnished in the appendix to the case. The Union asked for their reinstatement or alternative employment without loss of benefits and privileges and in addition thereto payment of full wages, allowances and other monetary benefits from the date of dismissal to that of reinstatement. The Union also asked the Court to rule that the collective agreement is binding on the successor, Arc En Ciel Restaurant. The Restaurant, in its statement in reply denied that those workers were employees of the Hotel but that they were the Restaurant's own employees and that they were not dismissed. Their services were terminated because of "the closure of the business and the ensuing redundancy". Subsequently on 12 May 1977, the President of the Industrial Court made an order under s 29(a) of the Act directing the Hotel to be joined as a party. In compliance with a summons (Form L) issued under r 12 dated 12 May 1977 and a request to submit statement in reply (Form J) under r 10(1) dated 1 August 1977, the Hotel through its Counsel appeared before the Industrial Court and submitted the required statement in reply. The substance of the reply by the Hotel was that the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction over the Hotel beca
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.