Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Employee status

Legal area

Court

29 Apr 2026

JASUDASS A/L SANASI KETUA PENGARAH PERTUBUHAN KESELAMATAN SOSIAL

Citation

BA-16-62-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-16-62-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Appellate Board correctly applied the statutory definition of "employee" under the Employee Social Security Act 1969 and, on the evidence (no contract, no salary slips, payment per delivery), found the appellant was not an employee; there was no error of fact or law in that finding and no substantial question of law under s91 to sustain an appeal, therefore the High Court dismissed the appeal.
10 Apr 2026

JASUDASS A/L SANASI KETUA PENGARAH PERTUBUHAN KESELAMATAN SOSIAL

Citation

BA-16-62-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-16-62-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to include Enclosure 17 was dismissed because the Court inferred the Letter had not been previously adduced, the Appellant's explanation for the omission was implausible, the Letter was undated and unsigned so not verifiably authentic or contemporaneous, and admitting it at the eleventh hour would amount to introduction of new evidence and risk prejudice to the Respondent.
9 Jan 2026

CHAN KIEN WOH SANJUNG CEKAP SDN BHD

Citation

BA-16-55-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-16-55-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The DGM's factual finding that the appellant was not an employee was supported by the appellant's own evidence showing absence of control and integration; therefore the DGM had no jurisdiction under s69 to grant the claim and the High Court will not intervene on appeal where no injustice in the fact-finding is shown.
17 Nov 2025

NORAINI BINTI ISHAK D/A VERMILLION NETWORK RAMNAH BINTI SUPA'AT

Citation

BA-16-33-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-16-33-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court upheld the Director General's finding that the respondent was an employee because the factual matrix (regular salary, bonuses, PERKESO contributions, employer control over leave and employer witnesses treating her as employee) satisfied the contract of service test; the appellant did not challenge the termination benefit calculation, so the award of RM25,416.44 stands.
29 Oct 2025

EZCARE TRANSPORTERS SDN BHD MOHAMMAD ANWAR BIN MOHAMMAD

Citation

BA-16-16-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-16-16-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the respondent was an employee under the Employment Act 1955 despite probationary status and that section 24 prohibits the employer from making wage deductions without written consent of the employee or prior permission of the Director-General; therefore KPTR correctly ordered payment of RM3,485.85 and the appeal was dismissed.
15 Oct 2025

RAJAMANSINGH MUKESH SINGH BGB BINA WORKS SDN BHD

Citation

BA-16-51-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-16-51-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appeal dismissed because there was no evidence of a contract of service, payment of wages or sufficient control to establish an employer-employee relationship under the Employment Act; issuance of a work permit in the respondent's name alone was insufficient to infer employment, and the DGL did not err in refusing further adjournment after previously granting time to secure counsel.
10 Jul 2025

KOPERASI RAKYAT BR2.0 MALAYSIA BERHAD 1. ) FARAH NISHA BINTI PARMAN 2. ) ZAKARIA BIN ALANG HASSAN 3. ) AZRUL HISYAM BIN MUNAP

Citation

BA-16-44-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-16-44-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court affirmed the Assistant Director: the Appointment Letters, when read with the parties' conduct and internal documents, evidenced contracts of service; the control test was satisfied (required attendance and employer-provided workplace); alleged lack of Board quorum did not vitiate the contractual obligations; therefore the respondents were employees entitled to the sums awarded and Zolkifli was entitled to payment in lieu of notice.
21 Nov 2023

RASAMEWA ICE-CREAM MANUFACTURER SDN BHD LOW CHOO TAH

Citation

BA-16-42-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-16-42-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the respondent fell within the Employment Act's First Schedule as he supervised manual workers, the Director General of Labour had jurisdiction to determine the complaint, the appellant terminated the respondent on 29.7.2022 (not resignation), and therefore the respondent is entitled to termination benefits; the appeal was dismissed and the Labour Court decision affirmed.
17 May 2020

MANDONG TRANSPORT&TRADING SDN BHD (COMPANY NO: 217922-M) PERTUBUHAN KESELAMATAN SOSIAL (PERKESO)

Citation

JA-24NCVC-198-03/2019 ( ENCL.1 & eNCL. 8) (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ENCL.1 & eNCL. 8
Case number

JA-24NCVC-198-03/2019 ( ENCL.1 & eNCL. 8) (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the contractual terms and applying control, integration and economic reality tests the court found Hussain bin Wih was an employee from 1 Nov 1996 to 30 Nov 2003; consequently the Applicant was legally obliged to pay SOCSO employer contributions under s.6. Section 84(4) does not operate as an absolute ouster of the civil court when read with s.90; however the originating summons amounted to an abuse of process and risked prejudicing pending criminal/summary proceedings, so the Respondent's strike-out application was allowed and the originating summons dismissed.