A three-member panel, led by Justice Che Ruzima Ghazali, now a Federal Court judge, ruled that Section 69A of the Employment Act 1955 clearly prevents the DG from intervening in any dispute that is already before the Industrial Court.
The unanimous ruling follows the dismissal of an appeal by two former employees of a cargo airline operator involving RM264,000 in unpaid wages.
Labour officer Nor Asheda Ramlan, sitting in the Bangi labour office, had in August 2023 ordered M Jets International Sdn Bhd to pay its chief financial officer Philip Phang RM120,000 for work carried out in February, March and 12 days in April that year.
She also ordered for its managing director M Gunasekar to be paid RM144,000 for work performed in the same period.
The founding partners of the company were served with termination notices on March 17, after being suspended on Feb 25 while they were investigated by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission for alleged wrongdoing in the company’s management and operations.
However, the High Court allowed the company’s appeal and set aside the DG’s (Nor Asheda) decision.
Justices Azman Abdullah and Evrol Mariette Peters heard Phang and Gunasekar’s appeal.
Peters, who wrote the judgment, said it was undisputed that the two appellants had already filed representations under Section 20 of the Industrial Relations Act (IRA) to challenge their dismissal.
She said the Industrial Court was vested with wide remedial powers under the IRA, encompassing the award of back wages, compensation for unfair dismissal, and consideration of matters related to suspension.
“Consequently, the decision of the labour office on unpaid wages would directly impact the determination by the Industrial Court on whether the salary increases were valid, whether misconduct existed, whether dismissal was with just cause and computation of back wages.”
Upholding coherence, finality of dispute resolution process
Peters said limiting the labour office’s jurisdiction served an important legislative purpose, to prevent duplicate proceedings and avoid the risk of conflicting decisions.
Peters said the bench accepted that the High Court judge ought not to have ventured into the merits of the dispute between the appellants and the respondent, as that was for the Industrial Court to decide.
“Nevertheless, her ultimate conclusion that the labour office had erred cannot be faulted. In our view, that conclusion was sound in law and firmly supported by established authorities,” she said.
Lawyers Alex De Silva and Joshua Lawson represented Phang and Gunasekar, while Wong Kah Hui and Ng Jing Yi appeared for M Jets International.