Back
2025 MarsdenLR 1933
HIGH COURT SABAH & SARAWAK KUCHING
UNIVERSAL CABEL (SARAWAK) SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
WILFRED TONY & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: KCH-16-3-3/2024]
An employer must comply with statutory termination notice requirements; financial difficulties do not exempt adherence to labor laws.
Headnote:(A) Labour Ordinance (Sarawak Cap 76) - Section 2 - Labour (Termination And Lay-Off Benefits) (Sarawak) Rules 2008 - Employment termination - Employees terminated without payment of benefits - Labour Court found employees as defined under s 2 - Appeals dismissed; upheld Labour Court's awards. (Paras 11, 72, 73)
(B) Termination notice requirements - Statutory requirements under s 12 not met by the Appellant - Employer's obligation to give specified notice period for termination must be adhered. (Paras 52, 71)
(C) Financial difficulties - Appellant argued financial dire straits justify retrenchment; court found argument insufficient to negate statutory requirements during termination. (Paras 23, 62)
Facts of the case:
The Respondents, employees of the Appellant, filed a complaint after their termination without benefits. The Labour Court awarded compensation to the Respondents, leading to the Appellant's appeal. (Paras 1-4)
Findings of Court:
The Labour Court correctly determined that the Respondents were entitled to termination benefits; their statutory rights must not be overlooked regardless of the Appellant's financial issues. (Paras 70-72)
Issues: Whether the Respondents qualify as employees under the Labour Ordinance; lawfulness of termination and entitlement to benefits. (Paras 11, 18)
Ratio Decidendi: The Appellant's failure to comply with statutory termination notice requirements invalidates the termination; financial issues do not absolve responsibility to adhere to the law. (Paras 52, 71)
Result: Appeals dismissed, Labour Court's decisions affirmed, costs awarded to Respondents.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. employees were terminated without benefits. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. determining employees' status and termination benefits. (Para 11 , 12 , 18 , 19) |
| 3. appellant's argument about financial capacity and restructuring. (Para 22 , 23 , 26 , 33) |
| 4. respondents' claim regarding compliance with statutory requirements. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 45) |
| 5. court's finding on termination notices and validity. (Para 49 , 50 , 52) |
| 6. court's affirmation of labour court's decision. (Para 69 , 71) |
Introduction
[1] The 28 Respondents, who were employees of the Appellant at the time, had filed a formal complaint with the Department of Labour Sarawak against the Appellant, Universal Cable (Sarawak) Sdn Bhd (UCSB), following their termination without the payment of any termination benefits.
[2] The Labour Court allowed the claims of all the Respondents and entered judgment against the Appellant.
[3] The Appellant appealed the Labour Court's decision to the High Court, and the appeals were registered under the following case numbers:
(a) Civil appeal No KCH-16-3-3/2024 - Wilfred anak Tony & 2 others;
(b) Civil appeal No KCH-16-4-3/2024 - Nikson anak Jimbey & 4 others;
(c) Civil appeal No KCH-16-5-3/2024 - Gelan anak Asun & 4 others;
(d) Civil appeal No KCH-16-6-3/2024 - Roding anak Ridi @ Lidi & 4 others
(e) Civil appeal No KCH-16-7-3/2024 - Hamri bin Sejali & 4 others;
(f) Civil appeal No KCH-16-8-3/2024 - Tracy anak Saga;
(g) Civil appeal No KCH-16-9-3/2024 - Haris bin Sa'adi & 3 others.
[4] The above appeals were consolidated and heard together in High Court 2, Kuching, as they involved similar issues. After perusing the Records of Appeal and considering the submissions from the counsels for both the Appellant and the Respondents, I dismissed the appeals and upheld the decision and awards of the Labour Court in all cases.
[5] Dissatisfied with my decision, the Appellant filed its Notices of Appeal to the Court of Appeal.
[6] Below are the grounds for my decision in respect of all the said seven appeals. This ground is for all the appeals.
Brief Background Facts
[7] All the Respondents (claimants in the Labour Court) were employees of the Appellant who were terminated by the Appellant. Following their termination, a total of twenty-eight (28) out of thirty-two (32) retrenched employees filed formal complaints with the Labour Department against the Appellant, leading to the subsequent cases being filed in the Labour Court as follows:
(a) Labour Case No KBR/31301/2023/0534
1. Wilfred Anak Tony (WN. KP. 690503-13-5945)
2. Molina Awi (WN. KP. 790515-13-5094)
3. Panuk Anak Rakub (WN. KP. 740110-13-5250)
(b) Labour Case No KBR/31301/2023/0536
1. Nikson Anak Jimbey (WN. KP. 690503-13-5945)
2. Lawrence Anak Panya (WN. KP. 701205-13-5331)
3. Siew Mee Anak Rais (WN. KP. 730329-13-5678)
4. Rolan Ba Anak Barat (WN. KP. 861202-13-5195)
5. Benson Anak Bago (WN. KP. 820315-13-5537)
(c) Labour Case No KBR/31301/2023/0537
1. Roding Anak Ridi @ Lidi (WN. KP. 850821-13-5107)
2. Marcus Anak Tony (WN. KP. 841023-13-5749)
3. Collin Frankly Anak Micheal (WN. KP. 860203-13-5707)
4. Charles Hittler Anak Horison (WN. KP. 920116-13-5145)
5. Sanik Anak Sait (WN. KP. 840816-13-6229)
(d) Labour Case No KBR/31301/2023/0538
1. Gelan Anak Asun (WN. KP. 690125-13-5293)
2. Leonard Anak Manchan (WN. KP. 781016-13-5343)
3. Patricia Anak Boi (WN. KP. 711029-13-5226)
4. Bajek Anak Sigai (WN. KP. 650625-13-5082)
5. Connel Anak Bakat (WN. KP. 710603-13-5163)
(e) Labour Case No KBR/31301/2023/0539
1. Haris Bin Sa'adi (WN. KP. 690123-13-5433)
2. Freddy Anak Sasar (WN. KP. 910806-13-5311)
3. Freddy Anak Kenest (WN. KP. 771127-13-5339)
4. Ronoregen Anak Suya (WN. KP. 810102-
(f) Labour Case No KBR/31301/2023/0540
1. Hamri Bin Sejali (WN. KP. 680502-13-5039)
2. Robin Anak Banteng (WN. KP. 701108-13-5663
3. Kenot Anak Nisir (WN. KP. 670529-13-5152)
4. Carolyn Dasor Anak Mongi (WN. KP. 710531-13-5278)
5. David Anak Agok (WN. KP. 700910-13-5359)
(g) Labour Case No KBR/31301/2023/0542
1. Tracy Ak Sag
