Back
2011 MarsdenLR 983
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
GUAN CHING CHYE – Appellant
Versus
BP CLINICAL LAB SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No. 80 Of 2011 [Case No: 15/1-800/10]
Compliance with an award is mandatory, and parties must provide justifiable reasons for non-compliance, or face enforcement measures.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Act - Section 56(1) - Non-compliance with Award - Respondent ordered to pay RM44,482.00 to Complainant, failing which the Respondent had to show good reason for non-compliance. The Court found no special circumstances to justify delay in payment. (Paras 1-2)
Facts of the case:
The Complainant lodged a complaint that the Respondent had failed to comply with an Award ordering payment of RM44,482.00, due 30 days after 16.6.2010. The Respondent sought extensions and adjournments without taking timely action.
Findings of Court:
There were no good reasons provided by the Respondent for failing to comply with the Award issued in June 2010.
Issues: The primary issues address whether the Respondent had shown valid reasons for the non-compliance with the Award.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that compliance with the Award is mandatory and the Respondent's delayed actions without justifying circumstances warranted immediate enforcement of the payment.
Result: The Respondent was ordered to pay RM44,482.00 to the Complainant within 30 days.
On the first mention date on 29.9.2010, Mr. Ravindra of Messrs Murugavell Arumugam & Co. appeared for the Complainant. The Respondent's representative was absent. The Court records showed that the notice in Form F has been duly served on the Respondent.
The case was called up again for mention on 13.10.2010. Mr. Zahari Affendi b. Abdul Kadir of Messrs Muhammad Jailani & Partners appeared for the Respondent. He requested for another mention date as he had just been appointed and did not have any documents with him.
On the next mention date on 19.11.2010 Encik Zahari informed that he had just obtained the documents from the previous Solicitors. He requested for another date for him to take instructions. The Court fixed the mention date on 2.12.2010 and the hearing date for the complaint on 12.1.2011.
When the case was called up for mention on 2.12.2010 Encik Zahari for the Respondent said that he was instructed to file an application for judicial review. However, as the time for filing the application had lapsed, he had first to file an application for extension of time.
The Complaint was called for hearing on 12.1.2011. Encik Zahari informed the Court that he had filed an application for extension of time with the High Court on 17.12.2010. The application had not been fixed for hearing. He confirmed that he did not file any application for stay of this complaint with the High Court. He applied for the hearing of the Complaint to be adjourned as he had just received a cheque from the Respondent for the sum awarded in the said Award. The said cheque was made in favour of the Respondent's Solicitors as stakeholders pending disposal of the application for extension of time in the High Court.
Mr. Ravindra for the Complainant objected to the request for an adjournment. He said that at all material times prior to the date of hearing the Respondent's Solicitors had not communicated with him regarding the matter. The Complaint had been set down for hearing.
The Court noted that the said Award had been handed down since June 2010. The records showed that the Respondent did not take any action on the said Award. Since the Complaint had been set down for hearing since 19.11.2010, the Court was of the view that there was no good reason for the hearing to be adjourned on the day itself.
Mr. Ravindra in his submission said that although the Respondent had filed an application for extension of time to file for a judicial review, the Respondent had not even filed an application for stay of the proceedings. The Respondent had also not filed any affidavit to state the reasons for not complying with the said Award. The Respondent had failed to comply with the said Award since it was handed down in June 2010.
It was the Respondent's case that they had filed with the High Court an application for extension of time. Encik Zahari said he had just been informed that the said application is fixed for hearing on 25.01.2011. He was informed that the Respondent's previous Solicitors had not as instructed filed the application for judicial review. The Respondent was ready and willing to pay the sum awarded pending the disposal of the application in the High Court. That proposal was not accepted by the Complainant.
Having regard to the facts of the complaint and upon hearing the submission of both the Counsels, this Court acting according to equity and good conscience finds that there were no special circumstances shown by the Respondent for not complying with said Award.
