AWARD

Eswary Maree:

Reference

[1] This is a reference under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ("the Act") as amended by the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2020 by the Director General of Industrial Relations, emanating from the dismissal of Yap Pei Ling ("the Claimant") by First City Corporation Sdn Bhd ("the Company") on 19 June 2023.

[2] This Court will determine the issues before it and make its findings based on the pleadings, notes of proceedings, the relevant oral and documentary evidence, the cause papers and submissions. The following documents were filed before this Court :

(i) Statement of Case dated 10 December 2023;

(ii) Statement in Reply dated 23 January 2024;

(iii) Amended Rejoinder dated 23 September 2024 is filed following the last minute introduction of the Company's Bundle (COB-3);

(iv) Company's Bundle of Documents: COB-1;

(v) Company's Bundle of Documents (2): COB-2;

(vi) Company's Bundle of Documents (3): COB-3;

(vii) The Claimant's Bundle of Documents: CLB-1;

(viii) The Claimant's Additional Bundle of Documents: CLB-2;

(ix) Witness Statements of the Company's Witnesses which were marked as follows:

• COWS-1: Lee Meng Wai, David;

• COWS-2: Khoo Kah Hooi;

• COWS-3: Wong Siew Kuen;

• COWS-4 & 4A (Additional Witness Statement): S Komlavathi Subramaniam;

• COWS-5: Leong Wee Phin

(x) Witness Statement of the Claimant, Yap Pei Ling: CLWS-1;

(xi) The Claimant's Written Submissions dated 20 January 2025;

(xii) The Company's Written Submissions dated 16 January 2025;

(xiii) The Claimant's Written Submissions In Reply dated 12 February 2025; and

(xiv) The Company's Written Submissions In Reply dated 17 February 2025.

Preliminary Issue

[3] The Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC) represented the Claimant. At the outset of the hearing, the Counsel for the Company raised a preliminary objection (PO) stating that MTUC did not have the legal standing in law to represent the Claimant as she was not a member of any trade union represented by MTUC. The issue that arose for determination before this Court was whether MTUC had the legal standing in law to represent the Claimant.

[4] Upon hearing the parties on the PO raised by the Company's Counsel on 22 July 2024, this Court ruled that the Claimant although not a member of any trade union, is properly represented in this Court proceeding by a representative of MTUC and that his representation and appearance in proceedings before this Court are thus in accordance with s 27(1)(d) of the Act.

[5] To further support this Court 's ruling, in the case of Kadam AK Saai & Ors v. The Malaysian Today Press Sdn Bhd; [2007] 4 ILR 352, the then Learned Chairman held as follows:

Section 27 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ("Act 177") speaks of the appearance of parties in Industrial Court proceedings and renders who can represent the trade union, employer or workman in proceedings. The representation is essential in view of the juridical personality of certain parties in law. Aside from that provision, there is the subsidiary legislation namely rr 3 and 4 of the Industrial Rules 1967 which provides for the procedural mechanism to be adhered to by the representative who appears for the parties in Industrial Court proceedings. In this case, the 19 claimants had appointed Mr Andrew Lo Kian Nyan of the MTUC, Sarawak division as their representative and the requisite warrant of authority had been dated the 22 June 2006.

In s 27(1)(d) of Act 177, an organisation (not a trade union) of employers or workmen registered in Malaysia is allowed to represent a trade union employer or workman. The provision allows for an official (not an officer) of that organisation to represent the aforementioned parties. This is an added feature to the scheme of s 27 of Act 177. The same parties who can be represented by a representative enumerated in s 27(1)(a), 27(1)(b) and 27(1)(c) can also be represented by an official of a registered organisation of employers or workmen, not being a trade union. Thu