Industrial Court may hear ‘pure monetary claims’, rules Court of Appeal

 

The Court of Appeal has upheld a High Court ruling allowing a sacked employee to bring a monetary claim before the Industrial Court without also pursuing reinstatement of her employment. (Reuters pic)

PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has ruled that the Industrial Court may hear an unfair dismissal claim by employees even if the claimant only seeks monetary compensation.

Justice Wong Kian Kheong said the Industrial Court does not lose its jurisdiction to hear a matter merely because a workman’s statement of case does not seek reinstatement.

He said the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (IRA) was enacted with the objective of providing effective remedies to employees.

“Pursuant to Article 5 of the Federal Constitution, an employee has a constitutional right to livelihood in respect of his or her employment,” he said in a 34-page judgment dismissing an appeal by ACE Holdings Bhd.

The company had sacked its vice-president, Norahayu Rahmad, on March 28, 2019. She filed a civil suit seeking RM1.2 million in damages but that was annulled by the High Court in December 2019.

Meanwhile, the human resources minister referred Norahayu’s case to the Industrial Court.

In her statement of case in the Industrial Court action, Norahayu did not seek reinstatement as a remedy, as is the norm in unfair dismissal cases. That led ACE Holdings to raise a preliminary objection.

The Industrial Court chairman upheld the objection and dismissed Norahayu’s claim on grounds that the court had no jurisdiction to hear a pure monetary claim.

However, last year, the High Court allowed her judicial review application, quashed the Industrial Court’s award and directed another chairman to hear the case.

The company appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Kian Kheong, who sat with Justices S Nantha Balan and Mariana Yahya, said the IRA provides for security of tenure by conferring an employee with a limited proprietary right to be engaged in gainful employment. As such, the employment may only be terminated if there exists “just cause or excuse”.

“If this court were to accede to the (employer’s) floodgates argument (by the employer’s counsel), then an employee’s constitutional right to livelihood and limited proprietary right will be undermined,” Kian Kheong said in a judgment posted on the judiciary’s website last week.

The judge was addressing lawyer Wong Kah Hui’s contention that requiring the Industrial Court to adjudicate in cases where no reinstatement is sought may result in the tribunal being overwhelmed by monetary claims.

Noting that Parliament has now provided for a right to appeal to the High Court against an award of the Industrial Court, Kian Kheong said: “In other words, even if employees have abandoned their reinstatement remedy, the employees should be allowed to proceed on pure monetary claims against their employers in the Industrial Court which had been specially constituted by our legislature in the IRA.”

He said even if allowing pure monetary claims causes an increase in cases coming before the Industrial Court, this will result in a corresponding reduction of such claims in the civil courts.

“This will directly reduce the (civil) court’s heavy workload. Consequently, it is in the public interest for the employee’s pure economic claims to be decided by the (Industrial Court) and not in our (civil) courts,” he said.

Lawyers Gerard Lourdesamy and Abdul Halim Abdul Karim appeared for Norahayu. - FMT