Section 52 states that the provisions in the IRA “… shall not apply to any government service or any service of any statutory authority or any workman employed by government or by any statutory authority”.

Justice M Nantha Balan, who chaired a three-member bench, said the Malaysian Institute of Integrity (IIM) was a government agency.

“The High Court fell into error in disregarding a letter from the Prime Minister’s Office stating that IIM was a government agency,” he said, in allowing an appeal by IIM.

He also said the Industrial Court was right in stating that IIM was a government agency and that, by virtue of the IRA’s Section 52, it lacked the requisite jurisdiction to hear an employee’s dismissal.

“The Industrial Court did not commit any error of law. The High Court erred in granting a judicial review to quash the (Industrial Court’s decision),” said Nantha, who sat with Justices Nazlan Ghazali and Choo Kah Sing yesterday.

The bench also reinstated the decision not to adjudicate the dismissal.

Roziah Harun, a former employee of IIM, had filed a representation for unfair dismissal at the Industrial Court.

At the Industrial Court, IIM applied to strike off Roziah’s representation on grounds that it came within the ambit of Section 52 of IRA and the Industrial Court had the powers to strike it off under Section 29(fa) of the IRA.

Roziah then sought leave for a judicial review at the High Court, which quashed the Industrial Court ruling on March 7 last year.

Lawyers Steven Thiru, Janice Leo and Adrienne Sena represented IIM while Sandosh Anandan and M Kamini acted for Roziah.