Shaik Daud Mohd Ismail JCA:

[1] This is an appeal from the decision of the High Court Kuala Lumpur whereby on 21 September 1994 the Court dismissed the appeal of the appellants against the decision of the Labour Court.

[2] The facts of the case are not in dispute.

[3] All the appellants who were members of the Estate Workers Union were originally employed by Dunlop Estates Bhd. (hereinafter I shall refer to as "Dunlop") at their rubber estate known as Segamat, Gombali and Paya Lang (hereinafter I shall refer to as "the estate") up to 31 August 1990.

[4] On 1 September 1990 the estate was sold to Industrial Oxygen Industries Bhd. and Dynamic Plantations Bhd. (hereinafter I shall refer to as "IOI-Dynamic").

[5] The appellants contend that on 4 September 1990 I0I-Dynamic the new owner of the estate made offers of employment to all appellants in the same estate on terms should they accept the offers, their services would be continued.

[6] All the appellants accepted the offers on 7 September 1990 & thereafter their services continued uninterrupted with I0I-Dynamic.

[7] Appellants contend that Dunlop failed to give them notices of termination of their employment with Dunlop as required by s. 12(3)(f) Employment Act 1955 (hereinafter I shall refer to as "the Act"). Their claim against Dunlop is for a total sum of RM231,490.16 as indemnity in lieu of notices as a result of the sale of the estate to I0I-Dynamic, as provided by s. 13 of the Act. Hence they filed their claim under s. 69 of the Act before the Labour Court.

[8] Their claim was heard by the Penolong Pengarah Buruh who dismissed their claim on the following grounds:

1. There was no termination of service;

2. The complainants had received offers of continued employment by the new employer;

3. The complainants were paid same wages in their respective capacity, on the same terms and conditions which were not different from their previous employment; and

4. The complainants suffered no monetary loss.

[9] The Court held that Dunlop therefore need not pay any indemnity in lieu of notices and accordingly rejected their claims.

[10] On appeal to the High Court their appeal was dismissed and the decision of the Labour Court was confirmed.

[11] The High Court held that as the contract of service is not for a specific period it continues until it is terminated.

[12] The Court agreed that as there was no termination the question of indemnity in lieu of notice does not arise.

[13] Hence this appeal.

[14] Learned Counsel for the appellants Mr. Lobo submitted that the High Court was wrong in law when it held that there was no termination of employment.

[15] He refers to the agreed facts as recorded by the High Court.

[16] He submits that the first two items of the agreed facts clearly established the fact of termination.

[17] It was agreed by the parties both in the Labour Court and in the High Court:

(a) that all the appellants were employed by Dunlop up to 31 August 1990 and

(b) on 1 September 1990 there was a change of ownership of the estate.

[18] He contends that by these two agreed facts alone, there is in evidence the fact of termination.

[19] He contends that even though there was no interruption of employment, as a result of the change of ownership, there must be a fact of termination of employment with the old employer and a beginning of employment with the new employer and once this fact exists, then the provisions of s. 12(3)(f) of the Act become operative.

[20] Therefore the appellants shall be entitled to, and the employer shall give to the employee, notice of termination of service.

[21] He contends that the old employer cannot escape his statutory duty under the Act by not simply terminating, as an employer changing ownership is required by law to give notice of termination or pay indemnity in lieu thereof under s. 13(1) of the Act.

[22] Learned Counsel for the respondent however submits that there is no principle of law that when a change of ownership occurs there is automatic termination