The Court reaffirmed that parties are strictly bound by their pleadings in non-compliance proceedings under the Industrial Relation Act.

[1] This is an application pursuant to s 56(1) of the Industrial Relation Act 1967 for an order of non-compliance of Article 10 and Article 31 of the Collective Agreement via Cognizance No: 221/2014 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the "the said Collective Agreement") between Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Perkilangan Perusahaan Makanan (hereinafter shall be referred to as "the Union") and Gold Coin Specialist Sdn, Bhd. hereinafter shall be referred to as the "Respondent").

The period of enforcement of the said Collective Agreement is from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2016.

[2] The Complaint:

[2.1] The Union contended that the Company had failed to comply with the two articles in the said Collective Agreement. The impugned articles are:

(i) Article 10 (Overtime);

(ii) Article 20 (Salary Structure and Salary Increment).

[3] The Law:

[3.1] Before embarking into the submissions filed by both parties, it is necessary to deal with the governing authorities which could be summarised as follows:

It is trite principle that in a non-compliance proceeding the material facts should not be disputed, otherwise it may amount to a trade dispute.

In order for this Court to exercise the power under s 56(2) Industrial Relation Act 1967 , the Complainant must proof to the satisfaction of this Court that there was indeed a breached by the company against the article of a Collective Agreement. In the event the Court had decided that the Company had not committed a breach of the term of the Collective Agreement, then it should not proceed further in the matter.

The application of s 56 of the Industrial Relation Act 1967 is seen in Holiday Inn, Kuala Lumpur v. National Union of Hotel, Bar and Restaurant Workers , [1988] 1 MLJ 306 ; [1988] 1 CLJ (Rep) 116, Seah SCJ (as he was then) held:

"Now, s 56 is concerned with the enforcement in a summary manner of an award made by the Industrial Court or of a collective agreement which has been taken cognizance of by the Court under s 17 after a complaint has been lodged as to its non-compliance. The non-compliance of a term of the award or collective agreement must exist as an antecedent fact before the Industrial Court can exercise its powers contained in subsection (2) thereof. It is therefore, a condition precedent to the exercise of those powers that there should be in existence a breach or non-observance of a term of the award or collective agreement. This must be satisfactorily established by the complainant.

Section 56 of the Industrial Relation Act 1967 which read as follows:

" Section 56 . Non-compliance with award or collective agreement.

(1)Any complaint that any term of any award or of any collective agreement which has been taken cognizance of by the Court has not been complied with may be lodged with the Court in writing by any trade union or person bound by such award or agreement.

(2) The Court may, upon receipt of the complaint

(a) make an order directing any party -

(i) to comply with any term of the award or collective agreement; or

(ii) to cease or desist from doing any act in contravention

of any term of the award or collective agreement;

(b) make such order as it deems fit to make proper rectification or restitution for any contravention of any term of such award or collective agreement; or

(c) make such order as it considers desirable to vary or set aside upon special circumstances any term of the award or collective agreement.

Basically, where there is a complaint under s 56(1) of the Act, the first function of the Industrial Court is to inquire into and finally determine the question whether the Union had brought its case within the terms that the Company had not complied with