Ingress Precision Sdn Bhd Menteri Sumber Manusia Malaysia & 2 Lagi

Ingress Precision Sdn Bhd Menteri Sumber Manusia Malaysia & 2 Lagi

The High Court held the First and Second Respondents failed to investigate and consider the Applicant's substantive objections raised before the Minister's decision; that failure breached the statutory obligation under section 9 IRA 1967 and principles of natural justice, rendering the decision in Form F dated...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
(Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant: Ingress Precision Sdn Bhd; First Respondent: Menteri Sumber Manusia Malaysia; Second Respondent: Ketua Pengarah, Jabatan Perhubungan Perusahaan; Third Respondent: Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-Pekerja Perusahaan Alat-Alat Pengangkutan dan Sekutu
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
23 June 2021
Case Number
(Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
application allowed
Legal Topics
Certiorari, Trade Union Recognition Under Section 9 IRA 1967, Natural Justice, Secret Ballot Procedure, Judicial Review of Administrative Decision
Administrative Law Labour and Employment Law Industrial Relations Law Certiorari Trade Union Recognition Under Section 9 IRA 1967 Natural Justice Secret Ballot Procedure Judicial Review of Administrative Decision

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ingress Precision Sdn Bhd

Applicant

Menteri Sumber Manusia Malaysia

First Respondent

Ketua Pengarah, Jabatan Perhubungan Perusahaan

Second Respondent

Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-Pekerja Perusahaan Alat-Alat Pengangkutan dan Sekutu

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Respondent lawfully and properly considered material objections lodged by the Applicant before directing recognition of the Union under section 9 IRA 1967
  2. 2 Whether failure to investigate objections raised prior to decision breached statutory duty and principles of natural justice
  3. 3 Whether decision in Form F dated 7.11.2019 was tainted by irrationality and unreasonableness

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held the First and Second Respondents failed to investigate and consider the Applicant's substantive objections raised before the Minister's decision; that failure breached the statutory obligation under section 9 IRA 1967 and principles of natural justice, rendering the decision in Form F dated 7.11.2019 unlawful and warranting quashing by certiorari.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • Order of certiorari quashing the First Respondent's decision in Form F dated 7.11.2019
  • Costs of RM2,000.00 to be paid by the First and Second Respondent to the Applicant without the allocator fee