EMPLOYMENT LAW
Independent Agent – Statement of Case – Abandonment of Reinstatement Remedy – Industrial Court – Jurisdiction
Ace Holdings Bhd v Norahayu Bt. Rahmad & Anor
Civil Appeal No. W-01(A)-83-02/2022|Court of Appeal
- see the grounds of judgment here
Facts Norahayu Bt. Rahmad (the '1st Respondent') claimed that she had been appointed in 2018 by Ace Holdings Bhd. (the 'Appellant') to be the Appellant's Vice President. The Appellant however claimed that the 1st Respondent was not its employee but was instead an 'independent agent' who had agreed to refer 'high net worth' individuals to invest in its products and services in return for commission. In 2019, the Appellant terminated the 1st Respondent's appointment. Subsequently, the 1st Respondent filed a civil suit at the Kuala Lumpur High Court claiming for 'renewal commission fees'. The 1st Respondent then made a written representation to the Director General for Industrial Relations ('DG') pursuant to the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ('IRA1967') to be reinstated in her former employment. The DG then informed the President of the Industrial Court ('IC') that the Minister of Human Resources had decided to refer the 1st Respondent's Representation to the IC for an award. At the IC, the 1st Respondent's statement of claim ('SOC') only applied for, amongst others, 'full wages and benefits' from the date of her dismissal. The SOC did not pray for a reinstatement to her former employment with the Appellant. Subsequently, the Civil Suit was struck out by the High Court and the 1st Respondent did not appeal the matter further. In the proceedings at the IC, the Appellant raised two preliminary objections, one of them being that the IC had no jurisdiction to hear the 1st Respondent's claim as the SOC filed only prayed for monetary relief and not Reinstatement Remedy. The IC accepted this preliminary objection and the 1st Respondent's claim was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. A judicial review was then applied by the 1st Respondent and the High Court allowed the application, therefore ordering a certiorari to quash the IC's Award and a mandamus order to direct another learned Chairperson of the IC to hear the 1st Respondent's claim on the merits. Hence this appeal to the Court of Appeal by the Appellant.
Issue If the Minister has referred a representation of a 'workman' to the IC, can the IC dismiss the workman's claim without hearing the claim merely on the ground that the IC has no jurisdiction to decide the claim because the workman's SOC has not applied for a Reinstatement Remedy?
Held In dismissing the appeal, Learned Judge of the Court of Appeal, Wong Kian Kheong held that this main issue had arose in the previously decided Court of Appeal case of Sanbos (M) Sdn Bhd v Gan Soon Huat1. According to the Ratio Decidendi in Sanbos, if the Minister has referred a workman's representation to the IC, the IC cannot dismiss the workman's claim without hearing the claim on the sole ground that the IC ceases to have jurisdiction to decide the claim merely because the workman's SOC has not applied for a Reinstatement Remedy. The Court of Appeal held that if they were to allow the IC to decide that the IC ceases to have jurisdiction to hear a workman's claim solely because the workman has abandoned a Reinstatement Remedy in the SOC, it will render redundant the Minister's reference and will further defeat the purpose of a rebuttable presumption provided for in the Evidence Act 1950. Further to that, the Appellant put forth the argument that if the appeal is dismissed it will open the floodgates for the IC to receive pure monetary claims of workmen who have not applied for Reinstatement Remedies in the SOCs. However, the Court of Appeal rejected the floodgates argument as to not undermine an employee's Constitutional Right to Livelihood and Limited Proprietary Rights. In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed and the decision of the High Court was upheld.
Footnote
1. [2021] 4 MLJ 924
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
