industrial court malaysia - Malaysian Legal and Tax Information Centre
industrial court malaysia - Malaysian Legal and Tax Information Centre industrial court malaysia - Malaysian Legal and Tax Information Centre
Fourth Issue: What would be the quantum in terms of backwages. Remedy: The Practice In the Industrial Court case of Coca-cola Far East Limited (Malaysian Branch) v. Warren J Carey [2006] 4 ILR p 2399, the Industrial Court Chairman, Y.A. Tuan Franklin Goonting (since retired), observed:- “...it has been the normal practice of the court, where reinstatement is not ordered, to award backwages limited to twenty-four months and compensation in lieu of reinstatement at the rate of one month's salary for each completed year of service.” In that case the Claimant who was an expatriate, had sought compensation based on various contractual terms. The learned Chairman made the following pertinent observations: “In seeking the other items of relief the Claimant is in fact asking the court to enforce contractual terms and conditions and to assess loss of income or damages, something within the province of the civil courts. The learned Chairman went on to say: “If all these other remedies sought by the Claimant were granted by this Court the effect would be to convert the Industrial Court into a civil court and the word “reinstatement” inserted into the statement of case would be reduced to a mere password to gain entry to the IRA system and thereafter seek civil remedies.” The above observation is clearly a pertinent one. This Court is in full agreement. 24
In Robert John Reeves v Southern Bank Bank Berhad [2010 2 LNS 1608] the Industrial Court held that “the court states that it does not think that it is proper that the Claimant should be allowed his prayer for all other contractual benefits that was accorded to him in the form of housing allowances, performance based rewards and other benefits as claimed pursuant to Clause 28 of his statement of case'. Issue Of Bonus a) In the case of UMW Toyota (M) Sdn. Bhd. v. Chow Weng Thiem [1996] 5 MLJ 678, the High Court held as follows: “A bonus is a gift or gratuity as a gesture of goodwill, and not enforceable, or it may be something which an employee is entitled to on the happening of a condition precedent and is enforceable when the condition is fulfilled. But in both cases it is something in addition to or in excess of that which is ordinarily received. Since bonus was a form of gratuitous payment of a discretionary nature, the respondent was not entitled to it as of right.” b) In the Industrial Court's case of Felda Palm Industries Sdn. Bhd. v. Mansor Pratiman [2006] 2 LNS 0948, the court followed and affirmed the above case of UMW Toyota (M) Sdn. Bhd.: 'In the case of UMW Toyota (M) Sdn. Bhd. v. Chow Weng Thiem (1996) 5 MLJ 678. His Lordship Abdul Malik J. said, “In my judgment bonus was a form of gratuitous payment of a discretionary nature, the respondent was not entitled to it as of right”. This Court agrees with the 25
- Page 1 and 2: INDUSTRIAL COURT MALAYSIA CASE NO:
- Page 3 and 4: The Pleadings The Pleadings in this
- Page 5 and 6: Bjorn Magnus Kopperud to him (page
- Page 7 and 8: We wish you well in your further un
- Page 9 and 10: 'misbehaviour', 'inappropriate beha
- Page 11 and 12: Decision on the First Issue The bur
- Page 13 and 14: It was argued on behalf of the Clai
- Page 15 and 16: The principle in Han Chiang appears
- Page 17 and 18: Third Issue: If the dismissal was w
- Page 19 and 20: the relevant factors into considera
- Page 21 and 22: Appeal had observed that in industr
- Page 23: gainsaid that this is a very senior
- Page 27 and 28: was only reasonable that the first
Fourth Issue: What would be the quantum in terms of backwages.<br />
Remedy: The Practice<br />
In the Industrial Court case of Coca-cola Far East Limited (<strong>Malaysian</strong> Branch)<br />
v. Warren J Carey [2006] 4 ILR p 2399, the Industrial Court Chairman, Y.A.<br />
Tuan Franklin Goonting (since retired), observed:-<br />
“...it has been the normal practice of the <strong>court</strong>, where reinstatement is not<br />
ordered, to award backwages limited to twenty-four months <strong>and</strong> compensation in<br />
lieu of reinstatement at the rate of one month's salary for each completed year of<br />
service.”<br />
In that case the Claimant who was an expatriate, had sought compensation<br />
based on various contractual terms. The learned Chairman made the following<br />
pertinent observations:<br />
“In seeking the other items of relief the Claimant is in fact asking the <strong>court</strong><br />
to enforce contractual terms <strong>and</strong> conditions <strong>and</strong> to assess loss of income<br />
or damages, something within the province of the civil <strong>court</strong>s.<br />
The learned Chairman went on to say:<br />
“If all these other remedies sought by the Claimant were granted by this Court<br />
the effect would be to convert the Industrial Court into a civil <strong>court</strong> <strong>and</strong> the word<br />
“reinstatement” inserted into the statement of case would be reduced to a mere<br />
password to gain entry to the IRA system <strong>and</strong> thereafter seek civil remedies.”<br />
The above observation is clearly a pertinent one. This Court is in full<br />
agreement.<br />
24
Change language