The High Court which overruled the Industrial court’s decision held that the Industrial court has to abide to the mandatory provisions in the Employment Act namely Section 59 and 60 of the Act and to consider evidence before the court before determining the rights and obligations of the party and make a ruling.
Central Holdings Management Services Sdn Bhd v Muhmammad Zailanai bin Mat Zin & Ors (2006) 6 MLJ 405.
Ahmani Sdn Bhd v Abu Karim Bin Baharom & Ors (2000) 7 MLJ 459. Failure to comply with such mandatory provisions would render a decision a nullity. From the wording and the procedural sequence set out in section 70 of the Employment Act 1955, it is clear and unambiguous that before any summons in the prescribed form is issued against the party complained, the Director General must examine the complainant on oath or affirmation.
Federal Hotel Sdn Bhd v National Union of Hotel Bar & Restaurant Workers (1983) 1 MLJ 175. it is trite law that the consent by both parties does not confer upon the court or tribunal jurisdiction to act outside its scope of its power.
Kesatuaan Sekerja Pembuatan Barangan Galian Bukan Logam v GB Kuari Sdn Bhd & Anor (2003) 2 AMR 363. Even the appellant had failed to object to the labour oficer unilateral decision to hear the mater without oral evidence but merely on the strength of written submission, such acquiescence did not empower the labour officer to decide over the matter by ignoring s70 of the act. s70 clearly mandates the labour officer to take and hear evidence on oath.
Section 70 Procedure in Director General’s inquiry
The procedure for disposing of questions arising under section 69, 69B and 69C shall be as followings: (a) the person complaining shall present to the Director General a written statement of his complaint and of the remedy which he seeks or he shall in person make a statement on the Director General of his complaint and of the remedy he seeks; and (b) the Director General shall as soon as practicable thereafter examine the complaint on oath or affirmation and shall record the substance of the complaint’s statement in his case book; and (c) the Director General may make such inquiry as he deems necessary to satisfy himself that the complaint discloses matters which in his opinion ought to be inquired into and may summon in the prescribed form the person complained against, of it is appears to him without any inquiry that the complaint discloses matters which ought to be inquired into, he may forthwith summons the person complained against…..cont.
R Rama Chandran v The Industrial Court of Malaysia & Anor (1997) 1 MLJ 145 held that a decision of the tribunal could be set aside if there is no evidence to support the feelings of the tribunal.
Ram Singh v Bright Steel Sdn Bhd (1988) 3 MLJ 33. The Supreme court set aside a decision of the labour officer on the basis that it acted on no evidence and contrary to hearsay rule.
