This is a Complaint lodged by Encik Jayaselan a/l Vengadasamy (hereinafter referred to as "the Complainant") against Finnegan's Irish Pub & Restaurant, Leolaris (M) Sdn. Bhd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Respondent") under section 56 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 for the non-compliance by the Respondent of the Award No. 114 of 2008 dated 18th January 2008 handed down by Industrial Court No. 28 (hereinafter referred to as "the Award").

Facts of the Case

The fact of the case which is undisputed is that there is an Award made by the Industrial Court in Case No. 28/4-407/05 involving the Complainant as Claimant and the Respondent/Company wherein the Industrial Court then had awarded the Complainant the sum of RM16,920.00 less any statutory deductions, if any, within 60 days from the date of the said Award No. 114 of 2008 handed down on 18.1.2008 and the Respondent was so ordered to pay accordingly. The said Award was subsequently served on the solicitors acting for the Respondent by the Complainant's solicitors twice ie, on 5.6.2008 and 10.7.2008. However, the Respondent had not complied with the Award resulting in this complaint under section 56 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 being filed on 17.9.2008.

The Hearing of this complaint

At the on set of this hearing, Mr. Peter Cheah, solicitor for the Respondent had requested for an adjournment on ground that his witness by the name of Michael who would be to give evidence on the non-compliance, was sick; his medical certificate would be produced at a later stage.

Mr. B. S. Ananthan, solicitor appearing for the Complainant objected to such an application for adjournment as the Respondent did not even comply with the direction of the Court to file the Statement in Reply. He prayed that the case should proceed.

Having heard both parties, this Court disallowed the application for postponement on grounds that the Respondent had failed to file any Statement in Reply and any Witness Statement or affidavit if at all it wanted to contest this complaint or to lead any evidence of any special circumstances in spite of this Court having granted ample time for it to do so. Secondly, the hearing of this complaint was scheduled for 2.00 pm today, 19.1.2009 and if the witness of the Respondent was sick, surely, notice could have been given earlier to the Court but it was not done so. Complainant was awarded the sum of RM16,920.00 on 18.1.2008 and the Respondent was ordered to pay to the Complainant within 60 days therefrom. Rightfully, the Respondent ought to have complied with the said Award by about 18.3.2008 but until to-date, a lapse of about 10 months, no payment was made at all to the Complainant. A postponement would only contribute towards further delay which would only cause further hardship to the Complainant. This Court therefore disallowed the adjournment sought at the 11th hour.

Complainant's solicitor then submitted on the facts of this case as per the Statement of Facts filed on 12.11.2008. Respondent's solicitor replied briefly that according to his client's instruction, the company's business was bad and it has no money to pay.

Findings of this Court

This Court finds that if the Respondent sincerely wanted to say that its business was bad and it had no money to pay, surely, it would and could have instructed its solicitor to file in the necessary Statement in Reply or affidavit or witness statement enclosing all relevant documents to indicate its financial position. That was no done. On the face of this case, there is nothing before this Court to merit any consideration by this Court under section 56(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967, in particular, any special circumstances under section 56(2)(c) of the same Act.

Conclusion

This Court finds that the Respondent had failed to raise any ground or any relevant or any special circumstances when ample opportunity and time had been given before trial, to merit any consideration by this Court. This C