The court affirmed that financial incapacity and a Restraining Order do not justify non-compliance with a Consent Award under the Industrial Relations Act 1967.

AWARD

Wan Jeffry Kassim:

[1] The Complainant has filed a complaint of non-compliance via Form S under s 56(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (" IRA 1967") and r 24A of the Industrial Rules 1967 on 23 June 2023 in relation to Award No 1092 of 2023 dated 11 May 2023 ("Award") between Dalton Wen Fong Anak Simon Awang ("Complainant") and KNM Exotic Equipment Sdn Bhd ("Respondent Company").

[2] The Complainant claims that the Respondent Company has failed and/or refused and/or neglected to comply with the said Award, whereby the Court by way of a Consent Award had ordered that the Respondent Company to pay the Complainant the sum of RM105,000.00 as full and final settlement on or before 12 June 2023. Since the Respondent Company has made no payment to the Complainant to date, the Complainant prays for the compliance of the Award forthwith.

[3] The following cause papers and documents were filed by the parties in the course of proceedings before the Court:

(a) Statement of Case by the Complainant dated 21 July 2023;

(b) Statement in Reply by the Respondent Company dated 11 September 2023;

(c) Rejoinder by the Complainant dated 3 October 2023;

(d) Complainant's Written Submission (Enclosure A);

(e) Complainant's Bundle of Documents;

(f) Complainant's Bundle of Authorities (Enclosure A1);

(g) Respondent Company's Written Submission (Enclosure B);

(h) Respondent Company's Bundle of Documents;

(i) Additional Respondent Company's Bundle of Documents;

(j) Respondent Company's Bundle of Authorities (Enclosure B1);

(k) Complainant's Written Submission in Reply (Enclosure C);

(l) Respondent Company's Written Submission in Reply (Enclosure D); and

(m) Respondent Company's Bundle of Authorities II (Enclosure D1).

[4] The Complainant has filed written submissions on 13 March 2024 (Enclosure A) and 29 March 2024 (Enclosure C). Whereas the Respondent Company has filed written submissions on 7 February 2024 (Enclosure B) and 22 April 2024 (Enclosure D).

Submission By The Complainant

[5] The Complainant submitted that this is a clear case of noncompliance of the Award by the Respondent Company where the Respondent Company had failed and/or refused and/or neglected to comply with the terms of the Award

[6] The Complainant and Respondent Company reached an amicable settlement by recording a consent Award on 11 May 2023 with the following terms:

(a) Without admission of liability, the Respondent Company shall pay the Complainant a sum of Ringgit Malaysia One Hundred Five Thousand (RM105,000.00) only as full and final settlement of this matter.

(b) The said settlement sum of Ringgit Malaysia One Hundred Five Thousand (RM105,000.00) only shall be paid by the Respondent Company to the Complainant on or before 12 June 2023.

(c) Upon the settlement of this Ringgit Malaysia One Hundred Five Thousand (RM105,000.00) only by the Respondent Company to the Complainant neither party shall have any further claim whatsoever against the other in respect of this matter.

[7] The Complainant further submits that to date, the Respondent Company has failed to comply with the Award by refusing to and/or neglecting to comply with the terms of the Award, which require the payment of the settlement sum amounting to RM105,000.00 to the Complainant on or before 12 June 2023.

[8] The Complainant cited the case of Holiday Inn, Kuala Lumpur v. National Union of Hotel, Bar and Restaurant Workers , 1988 MarsdenLR 799 , regarding the application of s 56 of the IRA 1967 whereby the Court held that there should be an existence of a breach or non-observance of a term of the award by the company, and this must be satisfactorily established by the complainant.

[9] The Complainant also submitted that the Respondent Company's failure to comply with the terms of the Award constitutes a breach or nonobservance of a term of the Award, and this fact is satisfactorily established by the Complainant. Furthermore, the Respondent Company is not disputing the Award as the Respondent Company in its Statement in Repl