Director General of Labour retains authority to direct wage payments under the Employment Act notwithstanding withdrawal of complaints by employees.

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal against the High Court's Order dated 6 November 2019 that set aside the Director General of Labour's Order dated 25 January 2019 against the Respondent to pay the unpaid wages of the Appellants.

[2] At the conclusion of the appeal on 11 January 2023, the appeal was unanimously allowed by us. We set aside the High Court's Order dated 6 November 2019 and affirmed the Director General of Labour's Order dated 25 January 2019. We also put the Appellant's solicitors to an undertaking to make payment to the Appellants concerned after receipt of the payment from the Respondent.

Brief Background

[3] The Appellants totalling 48 of them are Indian nationals formerly employed by the Respondent pursuant to a contract of employment dated 26 January 2018 to undertake work in relation to high electrical voltage towers in Bentong, Pahang Darul Makmur.

[4] During the course of their employment, the Respondent failed to provide the proper and appropriate accommodation and medical facilities as well as personal protection equipment in the workplace.

[5] Moreover, the Respondent failed to pay the Appellants' full wages for the months of September and October 2018.

[6] Consequently, the Appellants fled the workplace and sought shelter at a temple in Batu Caves. Subsequently, they were rescued by the authorities and lodged their complaint to the Department of Labour at Bentong, Pahang Darul Makmur, claiming for unpaid wages for the months of September and October 2018 ("Complaints").

[7] As a result of the Complaints, Tuan Aznan bin Salleh, the Deputy Director General of Department of Labour at Bentong, Pahang Darul Makmur (in exercising the powers of the Director General of Labour) ("Presiding Officer") issued a summons against the Respondent on 28 November 2018.

[8] The initial hearing of the Complaints at the Labour Court was fixed on 6 December 2018 but was adjourned at the request of the Respondent to have settlement discussion with the Appellants.

[9] The settlement discussion was not fruitful and the hearing of the Complaints resumed on 19 December 2018, 9 January 2019, and 10 January 2019 wherein the Appellants were unrepresented whilst the Respondent was represented by solicitors, Messrs N Selvam Jay & Co.

[10] During the hearing, there were several Appellants who stated that they wished to return to their home country expeditiously and accordingly forego their respective complaint.

[11] At the conclusion of the hearing, the Presiding Officer decided to proceed to inquire on the Complaints pursuant to s 69 of the Employment Act 1955 (Revised-1981) (ACT 265) ("EA").

[12] After the inquiry was duly carried out, the Presiding Officer ordered the Respondent to pay the sum of RM95,617.00 to all 48 Appellants being their unpaid wages for the months of September and October 2018 ("Decision").

[13] The Respondent is dissatisfied with the Decision and appealed to the High Court of Temerloh, Pahang Darul Makmur.

In The High Court

[14] The learned judge on 6 November 2019 allowed the appeal and ordered the parties to bear their own costs.

[15] The Appellants thereafter sought the leave of this Court to appeal and the leave was obtained on 25 February 2021 in respect of the following questions:

(i) Whether s 69 of the EA confers full discretion to the Presiding Officer of the Labour Department and/or Labour Court to further investigate and decide on a complaint despite the statements by the Complainant (sic) that they wanted to withdraw the complaint during the course of proceedings; and

(ii) Whether the Presiding Officer of the Labour Department and/ or Labour Court is right in deciding