BACKGROUND

1. The dispute emanates over the alleged dismissals of the following:

1. Rahmat bin Mohd. Daud (1st Claimant)

2. Anuar bin Ismail (2nd Claimant)

3. Kamaron Arzar bin Ismail (3rd Claimant)

4. Subramaniam a/l Muniandy (4th Claimant)

5. Naharin bin Salam (5th Claimant)

6. Pardinal bin Rosnan (6th Claimant)

7. Aznam bin Jantan (7th Claimant)

8. Nah bin Chi (8th Claimant)

9. Anamalai a/l Kungean (9th Claimant)

by M.K. Associates Sdn. Bhd. (the Company) on 21.1.2000. Vide letter of 3.10.2003 from the Industrial Relations Department the dispute was referred to the Industrial Court by the Minister of Human Resources under section 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (the Act) for an award.

2. In their respective Statements of Case all filed on 10.3.2004 the Claimants aver that they were employed by the Company as security guards and were dismissed with immediate effect on 21.1.2000.

3. It is the Claimants' contention that they were dismissed without just cause or excuse.

4. The Company in the Statement of Reply avers that the Claimants were not employees of the Company but were retained as independent contractors to provide security services at the Company's Serendah Golf Resort (Resort).

5. Hence the Company contends that the Claimants are not entitled to the remedies that they are claiming before the Court.

THE COMPANY'S CASE

6. The Company led evidence through Arunan a/l Tharumaseelan the Company's director (COW 1), Margaret Vengadesalam the former chief executive officer of the Company (COW 2), Mohd. Aslam bin Seraja Din the branch manager of Redza Security Sdn. Bhd. (COW 3) and Jayabalan a/l Pokkam @ Pokhen, the Company's finance executive (COW 4).

7. In brief their evidence is as follows:

(i) The Company never issued employment letters to the Claimants. The Claimants did not appear on the Company's payroll and moreover the Company did not keep any personal files on them. Furthermore the Company did not issue termination letters to the Claimants dismissing them from it's employment.

(ii) The Claimants were among security guards of a licensed security company M/s Wajib Juta Sdn. Bhd. (Wajib Juta) which went into financial difficulties in 1998. The directors then absconded leaving Wajib Juta without any management. The security guards including the Claimants who were providing services at the Resort then approached the Company requesting that their services be retained. The Company thereby agreed to retain each of them as an independent contractor. During this period the Company paid them in cash and contributed EPF and SOCSO payment on behalf of Wajib Juta.

(iii) In November the Company had a new General Manager who came to know that these security guards, including the Claimants were unlicensed and therefore were acting in contravention of the law.

(iv) Subsequently the General Manager took steps to rectify the situation. He approached several security companies to assist in rectifying the situation. Thereafter a company by the name of Redza Security Sdn. Bhd. (Redza Security) agreed to take up the management and employ the security guards concerned.

(v) The security guards of the Resort were called for a meeting with COW 3 on 21.1.2000. At this meeting eight (8) of the security guards including five (5) of the Claimants were present. They were informed that Redza Security would employ them and they would continue in providing the security services at the Resort. They were also told that they would be paid a basic salary of RM800.00 per month. However only four (4) or five (5) of the security guards accepted the offer and thereafter became employees of Redza Security during which time they were given monthly pay slips of their salaries and provided with EPF and SOCSO contributions.

8. In it's Written Submission filed on 20.12.2005 the Company submits as follows:

(i) There are no documents to indicate that the Claimants were employees of the Company. The Claimants were independent contractors as they were un