HIGHLINE SHIPPING SDN BHD INTAN WAZLIN BINTI AB WAHAB & 39 YANG LAIN

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR (BAHAGIAN KUASA-KUASA KHAS) PERMOHONAN SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN NO.: WA-25-132-03/2019 Dalam perkara bagi suatu permohonan untuk kebenaran bagi suatu periniah certiorari untuk membatalkan Awad No 131. tahun 2019 bertarikh 8.1.2019 dalam Kes Mahkamah Perusahaan No: 11/4-1141/15 yang diterima pada 31.1.2019; Dan Dalam perkara Seksyen 29 Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967 Dan Dalam perkara Jadual 1 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 Dan Dalam perkara Aturan 53 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 Antara HIGHLINE SHIPPING SDN BHD (No Syarikat: 203444-W) 1. INTAN WAZLIN BINTI AB WAHAB ...Pemohon Dan Page 1 of 15 eS Fnon PP YN wo wwowowdwns NNN NN NN YN = 2B 2B BSB BB BA Basa a ARON ASHEAN DAR ONS SHAHN DHAER HN SS DANNY NG HEAN TEE TAI KUANG NENG RUZI BIN SUPERMAN NORMIZAH BINTI JAMIAN WAN BAIZURAH BINTI WAN HUSIN VICRAN A/L ELANGGOVEN MOHD HAFILDZ BIN ASHA’ARI NORA AZILIDA BINT] MAMAT RADZIAH BINTI MOHD OMAR GEORGE MASILAMONEY . ANNAMAL GIRJA . VISWASEGAR A/L RASIAH MOHD FAUZ] BIN SALEH . SHAHRUL ANUAR BIN MAT ZAIN . SUHANA BINTI MOHD ZUBIR HASLIZA BINTI ZAKARIA . SUBHAN SHAH BIN FESUL . SHAFIZAN BIN SHARIDAN . ZAIFUL AZRULNIZAM EMELIYA BINTI ABD RAHMAN . ZARINAH BINTI AHMAD MUSA . SULAIMAN BIN LEBAI UJANG ZUNEIDAH BINTI MOHAMAD NOOR NORZIHAN BINTI ARIFFIN RAFIDAH BINTI AB AZIZ NURUL ESYANTIE NOR AFIDAH AWANG . NOOR HAFIZAH NAZRI BIN MOHAMAD Hizl . ASRULWANIR BIN MOHAMED LI . SUBATHRA DEVI . THANABALAN A/L SUPRAMANIA NORZILAWATI BINTI SUNGIP MANIMOLI A/P SUBRAMANIAM Page 2 of 15 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. LEE NGA CHING HUB SHIPPING SDN BHD (No Syarikat: 219494-T) (Dalam Likuidasi) EM SHIPPING SDN BHD (No Syarikat: 498377-H) HUBLINE BERHAD (No Syarikat: 23568-H) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA ... Responden Responden Heard together with DALAM MAHKAMAH.TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR (BAHAGIAN KUASA-KUASA KHAS) PERMOHONAN SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN NO.: WA-25-146-04/2019 Dalam perkara bagi suatu permohonan untuk kebernaran bagi suatu perintah certiorari untuk membatalkan Awad No 130 tahun 2019 bertarikh 8.1.2019 dalam Kes Mahkamah Perusahaan No: 11/4-1141/15 yang . diterima pada 31.1.2019; Dan Dalam perkara Seksyen 29 Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967; Dan Dalam perkara Jadual 1 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964; Page 3 of 15 Dan Dalam perkara Aturan Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 Antara HUBLINE BERHAD (No Syarikat: 23568-H) enoeoa Pe HN 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Dan INTAN WAZLIN BINTI AB WAHAB DANNY NG HEAN TEE TAI KUANG NENG RUZI BIN SUPERMAN NORMIZAH BINTI JAMIAN WAN BAIZURAH BINTI WAN HUSIN VICRAN A/L ELANGGOVEN MOHD HAFILDZ BIN ASHA’ARI NORA AZILIDA BINT] MAMAT RADZIAH BINTI MOHD OMAR GEORGE MASILAMONEY ANNAMAL GIRIJA VISWASEGAR A/L RASIAH MOHD FAUZI BIN SALEH SHAHRUL ANUAR BIN MAT ZAIN SUHANA BINTI MOHD ZUBIR HASLIZA BINTI ZAKARIA SUBHAN SHAH BIN FESUL SHAFIZAN BIN SHARIDAN ZAIFUL AZRULNIZAM EMELIYA BINTI ABD RAHMAN ZARINAH BINTI AHMAD MUSA Page 4 of 15 53 Kaedah- ...Pemohon 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. SULAIMAN BIN LEBAI UJANG ZUNEIDAH BINTI MOHAMAD NOOR NORZIHAN BINT! ARIFFIN RAFIDAH BINTI AB AZIZ NURUL ESYANTIE NOR AFIDAH AWANG NOOR HAFIZAH NAZRI BIN MOHAMAD HiZI ASRULWANIR BIN MOHAMED LI SUBATHRA DEVI THANABALAN A/L SUPRAMANIA NORZILAWATI BINTI SUNGIP MANIMOLI A/P SUBRAMANIAM LEE NGA CHING HUB SHIPPING SDN BHD (No Syarikat: 219494-T) (Dalam Likuidasi) EM SHIPPING SDN BHD (No Syarikat: 498377-H) HIGHLINE SHIPPING SDN BHD (No Syarikat: 203444-W) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA ... Responden - Responden Judgment Introduction 1) Highline Shipping Sdn Bhd (Highline) has filed a judicial review application No: 25-132-03/2019 (JR 132) for, amongst others, an order of certiorari to quash the Industrial Court Award No: 131 of 2019 dated 8.1.2019 ordering Highline to be joined as a party to the Industrial Court proceedings. Page 5 of 15 2) 4) Hubline Berhad’ (Hubline) had also filed a judicial review application No: 25-146-04/2019 (JR 146) for amongst others, an order of certiorari to quash the Industrial Court Award No: 130 of 2019 dated 8.1.2019 ordering Hub Shipping Sdn Bhd (Hub Shipping) to be substituted with Hubline in the Industrial Court proceedings. Both JR 132 and JR 146 are fixed to be heard together. The facts leading to the filing of JR 132 and JR 146 are largely undisputed and can be summarised as follows: - The 1° to 36" Respondents’ claim for reinstatement with Hub Shipping / Em Shipping 4.1. The 1% to 36 Respondents were employees of Hub Shipping or EM Shipping Sdn Bhd (EM Shipping). Sometime in 2015, the 1° to 36" Respondents services were terminated by the aforesaid companies. 4.2. Consequently, the 1% to 36 Respondents _ filed representations against Hub Shipping and EM Shipping for reinstatement under section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1967 (IRA). The said representations were subsequently referred to the Industrial Court Case No: 11/4- 1141/15 (Industrial Court Proceedings). Page 6 of 15 The 1%* to 36 Respondents filed Substitution / Joinder Application 4.3. 4.4 4.5. In the course of the Industrial Court Proceedings and by way of a search at the Companies Commission of Malaysia on 21.3.2017, it was revealed to the 1* to 36" Respondents that Hub Shipping had been wound up and a liquidator was appointed as early as 17.2.2016. In July 2017, the 1* to 36° Respondents filed an application in the Industrial Court Proceedings under section 29(a) of the IRA for leave to: - a) substitute Hub Shipping with Hubline as a respondent in the Industrial Court Proceedings (The 1° to 36t Respondents’ Substitution Application); and b) join Highline as a party to the Industrial Court Proceedings (The 1* to 36 Respondents’ Joinder Application). Briefly, in support of the 1* to 36" Respondents’ Substitution / Joinder Application, the 1* to 36 Respondents contended that:- a) there was a “nexus” by reason of commonality in shareholding and/or directorship between Hub Shipping, EM Shipping, Hubline and Highline; and Page 7 of 15 b) . the non-substitution of Hubline / non-joinder of Highline will make the award, if rendered in the 1° to 36 Respondents’ favour, ineffective and unenforceable as Hub Shipping is no longer in operation and has been wound up. Opposition by Hubline and Highline 4.6. Hubline and Highline opposed the 1* to 36 Respondents’ Substitution / Joinder Application. Decision of the Industrial Court 4.7. In January 2019, the learned Chairman of the Industrial Court (IC) delivered the Substitution Award and the Joinder Award allowing the 1° to 36" Respondents’ Substitution / Joinder Application. 5) At the conclusion of the hearing, | dismissed the Applicant's applications in Enclosure 7 in JR 132 and Enclosure 6 in JR 146 respectively. This judgment contains the full reasons for my decision. The Law 6) _ Itis trite law that the Industrial Court is empowered under Section 29(a) of the IRA, to order joinder of party to the proceedings. Section 29(a) of the IRA provides as follows: - Page 8 of 15 29. Power of the Court “The Court may, in any proceedings before it — (a) Order that any party to be joined, substituted or stuck off’ 7) Case laws seem to suggest that it is incumbent upon a party invoking the Industrial Court’s power under section 29(a) of the IRA to substitute / join parties to show the following elemenis: - 7.1. that there exist a reasonable factual or legal nexus between parties named and the parties to be joined (Hub Shipping, EM Shipping and the Applicant); and 7.2. the substitution is necessary to make the Industrial Court proceedings itself effective and enforceable or the non- joinder of the parties to the proceedings will render the proceedings in the Industrial Court ineffective and unenforceable. [See Harris Solid State (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Bruno Gentil Pereira & Ors [1996] 1 MLRA 665; [1996] 3 MLJ 489; [1996] 4 CLJ 747; Asnah Ahmad v Mahkamah Perusahaan Malaysia & Ors [2015] 3 MLRA 521; [2015] 4 MLJ 613; [2015] 3 CLJ 1053; [2015] 3 AMR 197] Decision of this Court 8) Having considered the cause papers, respective submissions and applying the law to the facts, | dismissed the Applicant’s Page 9 of 15 10) 11) 12) application in Enclosure 7 in JR 132 and Enclosure 6 in JR 146 respectively. | will now set out the grounds of my judgment. It is trite that a decision in the exercise of public duties and functions may be reviewed on the grounds of illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety and also disproportionality [See Akira Sales & Service (M) Sdn Bhd v Nadiah Zee Abdullah & another appeal [2018] 2 CLJ 513; [2018] 2 MLJ 537; [2018] 3 MLRA 589; Norizan Bakar v Panzana Enterprise Sdn Bhd [2013] 9 CLJ 409; [2013] 6 MLRA 613; [2013] 6 MLJ 605; [2013] 6 AMR 338] Having perused the judgment of the learned IC, | find that the learned IC had made its finding that the 1 to 36 Respondents have presented a prima facie evidence that there is a factual and legal nexus between the Hub Shipping, Hubline and Highline so as to justify their application. The court has also accepted the arguments put forth by the 1* to 36" Respondents which has provided the premise for the prima facie evidence in order to substitute Hub Shipping with Hubline and for the joinder of the Applicant as a party to the proceeding. | am of the view the findings of the learned IC are supported with reference to the relevant facts and law and the learned IC had taken into account all relevant factors and !aw in arriving at its decision that the Applicant should be joined as a party to the proceedings before the Industrial Court. Page 10 of 15 13) 14) 15) 16) Based on the facts of the present case, | find that there is nexus between the Applicant, Hub Shipping [In Liquidation], EM Shipping and Hubline. The uncontroverted evidence established that: 13.1. Hub Shipping [In Liquidation], EM Shipping and the Applicant are subsidiaries of Hubline. 13.2. Hub Shipping [In Liquidation] and the Applicant have common directors and secretary, namely Ling Li Kuang (Director) and Yeo Puay Huang (Secretary) 13.3. The letter of termination at page 45 of Enclosure 2 was signed by the common Director, Ling Li Kuang as CEO for Hub Shipping and Hubline. Applying the test as provided in the Court of Appeal case of Asnah Ahmad [supra] | am of the view that the 1% to 36" Respondents had shown that there exists a reasonable factual or legal nexus between the Applicant, Hub Shipping [In Liquidation], EM Shipping and Highline Shipping. | view that the non-substitution of the Applicant and non-joinder of Highline Shipping will make the Award, if rendered in the 1* to 36" Respondents favour ineffective and could not be enforceable as Hub Shipping [In Liquidation] is no longer in operation and had been wound up. Further, it is my view that the Liquidators are appointed to perform the statutory duties and responsibilities and to administer the Page 11 of 15 affairs of the company after the Company is wound up. Thus, the appointed Liquidator in the present case cannot be compelled in his personal capacity to assist the Industrial Court for the case relating to the termination of the 18 to 36" Respondents or thereafter made liable or assume liability for payment of any award that might be made against the companies. 17) Hence, | am of the opinion that it would be unjust and inequitable to join the Liquidator in the proceedings before the Industrial Court. 18) Therefore, based on the above, | am of the considered view that the learned IC had taken into consideration all relevant matters and had not considered irrelevant matters and as such did not commit any error of law in arriving at his decision. 19) | find that the learned IC in handling down the Impugned Interim Award has indeed kept to the objective and spirit of the provision of section 30(5) of the IRA, which requires the Industrial Court to decide according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case without regard to technicalities and legal form. Conclusion 20) Based on the aforesaid reasons, | dismissed: - a) the Applicant’s Enclosure 7 in JR 132 with RM4,000.00 costs to 1% to 36" Respondents subject to allocator; and Page 12 of 15 b) the Applicant’s Enclosure 6 in JR 146 with RM4,000.00 costs to 1% to 36" Respondents subject to allocator. Dated: 24 January 2022 Ahmad Kamal bin Md. Shahid Judge High Court Kuala Lumpur Page 13 of 15 Counsels JR 132 For the Applicant For the 37" Respondent ' For the 1% to 36" Respondents En. Alex Nandaseri De Silva Tetuan Bodipalar Ponnudurai De Silva Peguambela dan Peguamcara D3-1-8, Solaris Dutamas,. No 1, Jalan Dutamas 1, 50480 Kuala Lumpur (Ruj. Tuan — 03.2.3187.21) Pn Norizan bt Mohamad Pegawai Penerima Jabatan Insolvensi, Lot F21-F42, Tingkat 1, Bangunan IDCC, Jalan Pahat L15/L, Seksyen 15, 40000 Shah Alam, Selangor. Cik M. Eswary Tetuan The Law Firm of M. Eswary, Peguambela dan Peguamcara Suite 11.1, 11th Floor, Bangunan Yee Seng, No. 15, Jalan Raja Chulan, 50200 Kuala Lumpur. Page 14 of 15 JR 146 For the Applicant For the 37" Respondent For the 1* to 36" Respondents Cik Khong Mei — Yan (En Ng Chin Wern with her) Tetuan Ranjit, Ooi & Robert Low, Peguambela dan Peguamcara No. 53, Jalan Maarof, Bangsar 59000 Kuala Lumpur (Ruj. Tuan: OHL. RN.KMY.ma 0055.2017) Pn. Norizan bt Mohamad Pegawai Penerima Jabatan Insolvensi, Lot F21-F42, Tingkat 1, Bangunan IDCC, Jalan Pahat L15/L, Seksyen 15, 40000 Shah Alam, Selangor. Cik M. Eswary Tetuan The Law Firm of M. Eswary, Peguambela dan Peguamcara Suite 11.1, 11th Floor, Bangunan Yee Seng, No. 15, Jalan Raja Chulan, 50200 Kuala Lumpur. Page 15 of 15