JUDGMENT

Mohd. Azmi FJ:

On 12 November 1981, the right hand of Miss Rethana aged 18 years was caught in a cutting machine whilst working at the plywood factory of Weng Meng Industrial Sdn. Bhd. at Puchong, Selangor. As a result of the accident, she lost her thumb and three fingers which is indeed a tragedy for a young girl of her age. Under the provisions of the Employees' Social Security Act, 1969, she belongs to a class of employees who are insured against such accidents, and accordingly she has been awarded under the Act a benefit of RM1.50 per day giving her a sum of about RM1,026 over a period of two years. She refuses to accept the award contending that it is unconstitutional in that if she had not been barred by the Act to sue her employer for negligence in a Court of Law, she would expect the Court to award her damages in the region of RM74,000 based on current awards given by the Courts for similar injuries. Through her father and next friend Mr. M. Rajasigamoney, she applies to me as a Federal Judge by notice of motion for leave under Article 4(4) of the Federal Constitution to commence proceedings in the Federal Court against the Government of Malaysia for a declaration that ss. 31, 42, 43, 58, 84 and 87 of the Employees' Social Security Act and also the schedules to the said Act are inconsistent with various provisions of the Constitution, and further for a declaration that the said Act of Parliament is void to the extent of such inconsistencies.

The main issue for determination is whether such proceedings must be commenced in the Federal Court as a Court of first instance so as to require her to obtain leave of a Judge of the Federal Court as provided by Article 4(4) of the Constitution. Article 4(1) provides that, "This Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void". It thus contains an important declaration of a principle. Clauses (2) and (3) of Article 4 then provide the scope and extent of the right to challenge the validity of any law passed by Parliament or the Legislature of any State; whilst Clause (4) which must be read together with Article 128(1)(a) provides the forum where it can be challenged. It would be instructive to reproduce the relevant porvisions of Article 4(3) and 4(4) and as well as Article 128(1) (a), in so far as laws enacted by Parliament are concerned, in disputes other than between the Federation and one or more States. They are as follows:

Article 4(3) The validity of any law made by Parliament ... shall not be questioned on the ground that it makes provision with respect to any matter with respect to which Parliament ... has no power to make laws, except in proceedings for a declaration that the law is invalid on that ground ...

Article 4(4) Proceedings for a declaration that a law is invalid on the grounds mentioned in cl. (3) ... shall not be commenced without the leave of a Judge of the Federal Court; ...

Article 128(1)(a) The Federal Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court; have jurisdiction to determine in accordance with any rules of court regulating the exercise of such jurisdiction any question whether a law made by Parliament ... is invalid on the ground that it makes provision with respect to a matter with respect to which Parliament... has no power to make laws; ...

(Emphasis is mine)

The word "matter" in Articles 4(3) and 128(1)(a) came up for determination before Suffian L.P. in the case of Syarikat Banita Sdn. Bhd. v. Government of State of Sabah [1977]. He dealt with it in the following words:

In the light of Stephen Kalong Ningkan v. Tun Haji Abang Openg & Tawi Sli (No. 2) [1967] 1 MLJ 46, Yeoh Tat Thong v. Government of Malaysia & Anor. [1973], and Ah Thian v. Government of Malaysia [1976], I agreed with the learned State Attorney-General of Sabah that the word "matter" in Clause (3) of Article 4 has the same meaning as the