Share:

Print

30 August 2024

EMPLOYMENT LAW

Government Agency – Industrial Court – Dismissal – Threshold Jurisdiction

Institut Integriti Malaysia v Roziah Binti Harun & Anor
Civil Appeal No. W-01(A)-172-04/2023 | Court of Appeal

- see the grounds of judgment here

Facts Institut Integriti Malaysia (the ‘Appellant’) is a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1965 (now Companies Act 2016) as a company limited by guarantee. Roziah Binti Harun (the ‘Respondent’) was at all material times an employee of the Appellant until her dismissal on 15 July 2020. At the time of her dismissal, the Respondent held the position of "Penolong Pengarah Kanan (Projek Khas)”. The Respondent was dismissed by the Appellant for alleged serious misconduct which led the Respondent to file a representation under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967, claiming she had been dismissed without just cause or excuse. The Industrial Court heard the matter and, based on an application by the Appellant, struck out the Respondent's case under Section 52 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967, ruling that the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction over the matter as the Appellant was a government agency. The Respondent then applied to the High Court for Judicial Review, seeking to quash the Industrial Court’s decision. The High Court quashed the Industrial Court’s decision stating that, amongst others, the Respondent’s employment contract did not indicate that she was a government servant and the fact that the Appellant was incorporated under the Companies Act and limited by guarantee did not make it a government entity. Unsatisfied with the decision of the High Court, the Appellant filed this appeal.

Issues 1. Whether the Appellant could rely on Section 52 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 to argue that the Industrial Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the Respondent's case because the Appellant was a government agency.
2. Whether the term "government agency," as referenced in a letter from the Prime Minister’s Office, was sufficient to bring the Appellant within the ambit of Section 52 of the Act.

Held In allowing the appeal, YA Datuk Nantha Balan, in delivering the judgement of the Court of Appeal held that Appellant was indeed a government agency, as evidenced by multiple factors which includes, the Appellant’s operational budget which was provided by the Federal Government through the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) and the Appellant being listed as an agency of the PMO in official government documents and being gazetted as a department/agency under the PMO. Further, the Court of Appeal disagreed with the High Court's view that the term "government agency" had no legal connotation. The Court of Appeal emphasized that the term "government agency" is legally significant and appears in various pieces of legislation, implying a legal and governmental connection. The Court of Appeal highlighted that the Appellant’s primary function was closely related to the government's anti-corruption efforts and national integrity initiatives. Despite generating income through its activities, the Appellant’s role as a key component of the government's integrity and anti-corruption strategy solidified its status as a government agency. In conclusion, the Court of Appeal's decision was driven by the determination that the Appellant is a government agency, and thus, the Industrial Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the case under Section 52 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967. These reasons were central to the Court of Appeal's judgment, which ultimately overturned the High Court's decision and upheld the Industrial Court's ruling.

Zul Rafique & Partners
{30 August 2024}


Please email your details to [email protected] if you would like to subscribe to our Knowledge Centre.

Let's Connect!
 LINKEDIN: Zul Rafique & Partners
 INSTAGRAM: @zrplaw