Female employees under full or part-time contracts are entitled to maternity benefits under the Employment Act, independent of their working hours, reaffirming jurisdiction of the Labour Court over claims regardless of employment status.

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal (Encl 1) by the Appellant against the decision of the learned Director General of Labour (DGL) dated 9 November 2022 whereby the Appellant was ordered to pay the Respondents the total sum of RM11,854.86.

[2] After the hearing, I dismissed the Appellant's appeal (Encl 1). The reasons for the decision are set down below.

Background Facts

[3] The background facts of this case can be summarized as follows:

3.1 The Respondents were both former employees of the Appellant. The First Respondent was employed by the Appellant from 5 January 2021 until her effective date of resignation on 30 May 2022.

3.2 The Second Respondent was employed by the Appellant starting from 10 February 2022 until her employment was abruptly terminated by the Appellant on 16 June 2022.

3.3 Due to non-payment of wages, salary in lieu of notice period, maternity benefits and/ or other allowances, the Respondents lodged a complaint against the Appellant according to s 69 of the Employment Act 1955 ( EA 1955) at the Labour Department of Kuala Lumpur (Labour Court) on 14 July 2022 which was registered as Director General of Labour Summon Case No KBR/11401/2022/0783 (Labour Case).

3.4 The Labour Case was heard by the Labour Court on 12 October 2022 and decided on 9 November 2022 in favor of the Respondents wherein pursuant to the Order, the DGL had ordered the Appellant to pay the Respondents the total sum of RM11,854.86, the breakdown of which are as follows:

(A) In relation to the First Respondent. Yeonq Yu Lena

(i) Commission for May 2022 RM136.66

(ii) Balance salary for May 2022 (11 days) RM993.54

(iii) Petrol allowance for May 2022 (11 days) RM110.00

(iv) Parking Claims for May 2022 RM98.00

(v) Maternity allowance (60 days) RM4,600.00

(B) In relation to the Second Respondent, Peh Lee Huey

(i) Balance salary for June 2022 (15 days) RM916.66

(ii) Salary in lieu of notice (2 months) RM5,000.00

By the same Order, the DGL also dismissed the Respondent's claims for annual leave, Covid-19 quarantine leave, sick leave and hospitalization leave and the Second Respondent's claim for commission for May 2022.

3.5 Being dissatisfied with the Order, the Appellant then lodged an appeal to this Honourable Court by filing the Notice of Appeal on 22 November 2022.

The Appellant's Grounds For Appeal

[4] In this appeal, the Appellant sought to set aside the decision of the DGL. The grounds of the appeal as stated in the Memorandum of Appeal dated 21 December 2022 can be summarized as follows:

4.1 The DGL had erred in fact and in law in his decision when he failed and/or did not take into account the relevant fact that the First Respondent, Yeong Yu Leng was a part-time employee of the Appellant and thus, not eligible for the maternity allowance claim filed by her;

4.2 The DGL had erred in fact and in law in deciding that s 37 of the EA 1955 is applicable to the First Respondent's claim;

4.3 The DGL had erred in fact and in law in his decision when he failed and/or did not take into the relevant fact that the First Respondent was a part-time employee of the Appellant;

4.4 The DGL had erred in fact and in law in his decision when he misinterpreted and misapplied the principle of "contract of service" which had been set out in the case of Tekun Concrete (M) Sdn Bhd v. Zulkafah Norazri .

4.5 The DGL had erred in fact and in law in deciding that the Appellant had breached the contract of service when they granted an "early release" to the Second Respondent where the Second Respondent had agreed to an "early release" and asked t