Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Industrial court jurisdiction

Legal area

Court

13 Feb 2024

DA-22NCvC-42-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

DA-22NCvC-42-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-22NCvC-42-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff's civil claim was an abuse of process because wrongful dismissal disputes fall within the Industrial Relations Act 1967 and the Industrial Court; alternatively on the merits the defendant lawfully terminated employment for gross misconduct and conflict of interest, there was no actionable defamation, and the plaintiff's claims were dismissed with costs.
5 Aug 2021

XTEND SERVICES SDN. BHD. 1. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA 2. ) JOHNNY LEE YUEN KUN

Citation

WA-25-201-07-2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-201-07-2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the Industrial Court correctly found the 2 January 2018 letter to be a mandatory termination (not a negotiable offer), that the employer failed to prove cogent reasons (redundancy) for the mutual separation, and that the Industrial Court lawfully awarded backwages (22 months × last drawn salary) and compensation; there was no illegality, irrationality or perversity warranting certiorari, so the judicial review application was dismissed.
22 Jun 2021

MARITIME INTELLIGENCE SDN.BHD TAN AH GEK

Citation

02(f)-06-10/2020(J) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

02(f)-06-10/2020(J) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The Federal Court held the Industrial Court may not entertain or base its finding that a dismissal was with just cause or excuse on reasons that were not operative in the employer's mind at the time of dismissal and were first advanced post‑dismissal in pleadings; post‑dismissal matters may only be considered for shaping the appropriate remedy, not to justify the original termination.
3 Feb 2021

SUBRAMANIAM A/L LETCHIMANAN (NO. K/P: 680618-08-5993) THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Citation

W-01(A)-66-01/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-01(A)-66-01/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held the High Court erred in quashing the Minister's s.20(3) referral: the question whether restrictive sovereign immunity applies is a mixed question of fact and law requiring fact-finding by the Industrial Court; the Minister correctly referred the unresolved dispute because it raised serious issues for adjudication; delay did not justify quashing the reference absent demonstrated prejudice; therefore the Industrial Court must be allowed to determine jurisdictional immunity as a preliminary issue.
3 Sept 2020

Mohd Khairi Bin Hussin ( ) Kolej Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Selangor ( )

Citation

BA-12BNCVC-84-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12BNCVC-84-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Respondent established a prima facie case by affidavit and exhibits; the Appellant failed to raise a triable issue or rebut the evidence; the Appellant's unfair dismissal defence was a matter for the Industrial Court (already dismissed) and therefore irrelevant to this claim; summary judgment under Order 14 was appropriate and the appeal is dismissed with costs.
31 Jul 2017

CRYSTAL CROWN HOTEL & RESORT SDN BHD (CRYSTAL CROWN HOTEL PETALING JAYA) KESATUAN KEBANGSAAN PEKERJA-PEKERJA HOTEL, BAR & RESORT SEMENANJUNG MALAYSIA

Citation

W-02(A)-1601-09/2015 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-02(A)-1601-09/2015 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Service charge monies are collected from customers and form a contractual element of employees' total remuneration distinct from basic wage; an employer cannot lawfully use the service charge pool to satisfy its statutory minimum wage obligations under the Minimum Wages Order and Act 732; the Industrial Court's award upholding the service charge as separate remuneration was lawful and rational and the High Court's dismissal of judicial review was correctly affirmed.
MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD V MOHD BAHARI BIN MOHD JAMIL

Citation

MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD V MOHD BAHARI BIN MOHD JAMIL
Court

Malaysian court

The appeal is dismissed: a challenge to the Industrial Court's threshold jurisdiction cannot be raised by preliminary objection in the Industrial Court and must be pursued by quashing the Minister's reference (joining the Minister); the possibility that reinstatement is barred by s.56 BFIA does not oust the Industrial Court's jurisdiction to inquire into dismissal and the court may award compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
TELEKOM MALAYSIA KAWASAN UTARA V KRISHNAN KUTTY A/L SANGUNI NAIR & ANOR

Citation

TELEKOM MALAYSIA KAWASAN UTARA V KRISHNAN KUTTY A/L SANGUNI NAIR & ANOR
Court

Malaysian court

The Industrial Court is not required to prove alleged criminal misconduct such as theft beyond reasonable doubt; it must apply the civil standard (balance of probabilities), applied flexibly according to the gravity of the allegation, because the Industrial Court is an arbitral tribunal governed by the Industrial Relations Act and must decide according to equity and substantial merits rather than criminal technicalities.