Background of the Case

This case was scheduled for hearing on 16.2.2009 with notice of hearing having been duly received by the Respondent via AR registered post with acknowledgement being returned to this Court. Respondent was nevertheless absent on the hearing date without any reason being advanced to the Court and it did not even communicate with this Court to seek a postponement or to inform this Court of its intention whether to defend itself of the Claimant's claim or any other reasons. Indeed the Respondent had never attended this Court by its representative nor through an advocate and solicitor from the first mention of this case until the date of the trial. This case had thus far been scheduled for mention as many as 5 times and in addition it had been fixed for case management twice. Notices and/or letters of the Court had been sent to the Respondent for all these mention dates as well as the case management dates; A.R. Registered cards with the Respondent's acknowledgement receipts for the mention dates on 19.3.2008 and 11.6.2008 were returned to the Court but there were no proof of service on several other occasions. Copy of the Statement of Case of the Claimant as well as his Bundle of Documents that had been filed were also sent to the Respondent via A.R. Registered mail vide the letter of this Court dated 21.5.2008 and they were duly acknowledged receipt by the Respondent with the A.R. Registered card being returned to this Court on 2.6.2008. When there was totally no response from the Respondent and for its absence throughout all the various mention and case management without even once written to this Court of what it intended to do with this case, this Court then fixed the hearing date on 23.9.2008. However, as there was no proof of service of the notice of hearing for the hearing on 23.9.2008 on the Respondent, this Court further adjourned the hearing and rescheduled it to 12.1.2009 but it was postponed on this occasion because Claimant's counsel was engaged in the Shah Alam High Court on that day. The case was then rescheduled for hearing on 16.2.2009 and notice of hearing dated 12.1.2009 was sent to and received by the Respondent with A.R. Registered card being returned to this Court on 22.1.2009. On this hearing date on 16.2.2009, Respondent was again absent. There was no communication with the Court with the reasons for its absence. There was in fact absolutely no reasons whatsoever being tendered to this Court. The Respondent had also never filed any paper whether a Statement in Reply which is its pleadings nor any Bundle of Documents or anything at all to indicate that it did not accede to the Claimant's claim or contention. With these background facts, this Court allowed Claimant's application through his counsel to proceed with the hearing of this case ex-parte on 16.2.2009 under section 29(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as Respondent's total disregard to all notices and/or letters of notification of the mention and hearing dates as well as the direction of this Court only goes to show that the Respondent was not interested in the proceeding of this case at all. Sufficient time and opportunity had been accorded to the Respondent for it to appear and defend this case but it turned a deaf ear and elected to ignore this case in total. This Court finds no reason to further adjourn the hearing.

The hearing was proceeded on 16.2.2009 in the absence of the Respondent and concluded. Written submission was then scheduled to be filed on or before 10.3.2009 by the counsel for Claimant. Meanwhile on 19.2.2009, Messrs Nadzrin Kuok Puthucheary & Tan then filed Form A and B to enter appearance for the Respondent. Vide its letter dated 3.3.2009, Messrs Nadzrin Kuok Puthucheary & Tan wrote to request that the matter be fixed for re-hearing on 10.3.2009, the date for Claimant's written submission citing the only ground that their client, the Respondent, was having