The court found that the relationship was that of an independent contractor, not employer-employee, emphasizing the need for clear contractual terms in determining employment status.

Introduction

[1] The Applicant filed an application for judicial review (encl 5) under O 53 of the Rules of Court 2012 ( ROC ).

[2] The Applicant was granted leave to apply for judicial review against the Respondents to seek the following reliefs:

2.1 suatu Perintah Certiorari untuk beralih ke Mahkamah Yang Mulai ini untuk tujuan membatalkan seluruh keputusan Awad Mahkamah Perusahaan No 396 Tahun 2020 [[2020] MELRU 396] bertarikh 14 Februari 2020 (Awad tersebut) oleh Mahkamah Perusahaan Malaysia (Responden Pertama) di sini (Perintah Certiorari tersebut);

2.2 bahawa Pemohon diberikan lanjutan masa di bawah Aturan 53 Kaedah 3(7) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 untuk memohon Perintah Certiorari tersebut mengambilkira Perintah Kawalan Pergerakan (dan kesemua lanjutan yang berkenaan) yang berkuatkuasa 18 Mac 2020 di mana Pemohon tidak mempunyai akses kepada dokumen-dokumen untuk membolehkannya memfailkan kertas-kertas kausa bagi memohon bagi Perintah Certiorari tersebut;

2.3 suatu perintah bahawa semua prosiding selanjutnya untuk menguatkuasakan atau melaksanakan keputusan Responden Pertama dalam Awad tersebut digantung sehingga pelupusan muktamad Permohonan ini oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini;

2.4 semua perintah dan arahan yang berpatutan dan berikutan hendaklah diberikan;

2.5 kos permohonan ini; dan

2.6 relif selanjutnya dan/atau yang lain sebagaimana yang dianggap patut oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini.

[3] In essence, the Applicant filed this judicial review to quash the decision of the 1st Respondent (Industrial Court) in its Award No 396 of 2020 [[2020] MELRU 396] dated 14 February 2020 (the impugned Award) which was handed down pursuant to the claim for unfair dismissal by Khairu Norliza Binti Khairuddin (the 2nd Respondent) against the Applicant under s 20 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (IRA) wherein the Industrial Court held that the Applicant's dismissal of the 2nd Respondent was without just cause and excuse and ordered a total sum of RM133,000.00 to be paid to the 2nd Respondent.

[4] After the hearing, I allowed the Applicant's application for judicial review (Enclosure 5). The grounds for my decision appear below.

Background Facts

[5] The background facts gathered from the cause papers and submissions of the parties are largely undisputed and can be summarized as follows:

5.1 The Applicant is a media company focusing on radio broadcasts, digital media & e-commerce platforms which is owned by Ripple (formerly known as Media Prima Radio Networks);

5.2 On 22 December 2013, the 2nd Respondent won the first prize in a reality television show conducted by the Applicant upon which the 2nd Respondent was offered employment as a Radio Announcer with radio Hot FM for a one (1) year period from 1 April 2014 until 31 March 2015, vide a fixed term contract of service dated 21 March 2014;

(See: Fixed Term Contract of Service dated 21 March 2014)

5.3 Flowing from the preceding, the 2nd Respondent's fixed term employment as Radio Announcer of Hot FM with Synchrosound Studio vide the Fixed Term Contract of Service dated 21 March 2014 was extended for one (1) year until 31 March 2016;

5.4 On 15 March 2016, the 2nd Respondent executed another fixed term contract for service with Synchrosound Studio for a period of three (3) years which was scheduled to run from 1 April 2016 until 31 March 2019, under w