Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya di Kuala Lumpur
(Bahagian Rayuan dan Kuasa-Kuasa Khas)
Permohonan Semakan Kehakiman No. R2-25-235-2008
Dalam
Perkara
mengenai
permohonan untuk suatu perintah
certiorari
dan
mandamus
berkenaan Award No. 1176 Tahun
2008 bertarikh 8/7/2008 yang
dibuat dalam kes Mahkamah
Perusahaan No. 21/4-932/05;
Dan
Dalam
Perkara
mengenai
Seksyen 20 Akta Perhubungan
Perusahaan, 1967;
Dan
Dalam Perkara mengenai Aturan
53
Akta
Kaedah-Kaedah
Mahkamah Tinggi 1980;
Dan
Dalam Perkara mengenai Jadual
1, Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman,
1964;
Dan
Dalam
Perkara
mengenai
Seksyen 44(1) Akta Relief Spesific
1950.
1
Antara
Rajam a/p Arumugam
…
Pemohon
…
Responden-Responden
Dan
1. Sitt Tatt Berhad
2. Mahkamah Perusahaan Malaysia
PENGHAKIMAN
Mohd Zawawi Salleh, H:
Pendahuluan
[1]
Ini ialah suatu permohonan semakan kehakiman oleh
Pemohon untuk satu perintah certiorari bagi membatalkan
Keputusan Mahkamah Perusahaan Malaysia (“Responden
Kedua”) dalam Award No. 1176 Tahun 2008 bertarikh 8.7.2008
dan perintah mandamus yang diarahkan kepada Mahkamah
Perusahaan untuk mendengar semula kes 21/4-932-2005 oleh
Pengerusi Mahkamah Perusahaan yang lain.
[2]
Selepas mendengar hujah-hujah lisan, menimbang
Hujahan
Bertulis
yang
difailkan
oleh
pihak-pihak
dan
menyemak kertas-kertas kausa, permohonan ini didapati tidak
bermerit dan ditolak. Tiada perintah mengenai kos.
Latar Belakang Kes
2
[3]
Bagi memahami isu yang berbangkit, latar belakang kes
bolehlah dinyatakan secara ringkas seperti berikut:
(a) Pemohon
telah
memulakan
dengan
Responden
sebagai
Penolong
perkhidmatannya
perkhidmatannya
Pertama
Kanan
telah
pada
2/3/2000
Pengarah
ditamatkan
dan
oleh
Responden Pertama pada 18.9.2003.
(b) Pertikaian
mengenai
Pemohon
telah
penamatan
dirujuk
perkhidmatan
kepada
Jabatan
Perhubungan Perusahaan atas alasan Pemohon
telah ditamatkan tanpa alasan dan sebab adil.
Perdamaian tidak dapat dicapai. Oleh itu, Menteri
Sumber Manusia telah merujuk pertikaian tersebut
kepada Mahkamah Perusahaan untuk diadili dan
kes
telah
didaftarkan
sebagai
Mahkamah
Perusahaan No. 21/4-932/03 (“tindakan tersebut”).
(c) Responden Kedua telah menetapkan tarikh bicara
tindakan tersebut pada 12.11.2007. Peguambela
Pemohon tidak hadir pada tarikh perbicaraan
tersebut
dan
Responden
Kedua
telah
membatalkan tindakan tersebut melalui Award No.
2295 Tahun 2007 bertarikh 13.11.2007.
3
(d) Melalui Notis Permohonan bertarikh 14.12.2007,
Pemohon memohon supaya tindakan tersebut
dihidupkan semula
tetapi telah ditolak
oleh
Responden Kedua melalui Award No. 1176 Tahun
2008
8.7.2008
bertarikh
(“Award
Yang
Dipertikaikan”).
Alasan Permohonan
[4]
Dalam mencabar Keputusan Yang Dipertikaikan, antara
lain, Pemohon mendakwa bahawa Responden Kedua telah –
(a) gagal mengambilkira bahawa alasan-alasan yang
dikemukakan tentang ketidakhadiran peguamcara
Pemohon adalah munasabah dan mencukupi;
(b) gagal memberi pertimbangan bahawa tindakan
Pemohon
memerlukan
memutuskan
adalah
mempunyai
merit
dan
satu
perbicaraan
penuh
bagi
sama
ada
penamatan
kerja
Pemohon oleh Responden Pertama dibuat tanpa
alasan dan sebab adil; dan
(c) terkhilaf di sisi undang-undang apabila Responden
Kedua telah mengambilkira perkara-perkara yang
tidak relevan dan gagal mengambilkira perkaraperkara yang relevan.
4
Award Responden Kedua
[5]
Intipati Award Responden Kedua ialah seperti berikut:
“Merits of the application for reinstatement
At the hearing of the application, counsel for
the claimant informed the court that the claimant
did not attend the hearing on 12 November 2007
as she could not take leave from her new
employer in addition to the grounds for the
application as stated in his affidavit in support of
the application.
Decision
The reasons given by the counsel for his nonattendance and the claimant’s non-attendance on
12 November 2007 is devoid of any merit. The
business
meeting
in
Sudan
cannot
take
precedence over a court hearing. The consent by
the claimant to the request by a counsel for a
postponement shows an utter disregard of the
court’s time.
The claimant’s absence on 12
November 2007 was also inexcusable.
The first postponement of hearing on 4 and 5
July 2007 by the representative for the company
5
was allowed by the court as he had to perform
prayers for his mother who had passed away
recently.
The second postponement on 3
September 2007 was allowed by the court as
counsel for the claimant was on medical leave.
Counsel for the claimant has not submitted on
whether there were any merits in respect of the
claimant’s case.
The application for the reinstatement of the
case is dismissed”.
Keputusan Mahkamah
[6]
Alasan utama yang dikemukakan oleh peguamcara
Pemohon atas ketidakhadirannya pada tarikh perbicaraan yang
telah ditetapkan ialah:
(a) bahawa pada 12.11.2007, beliau telah bertolak ke
Sudan
untuk
menghadiri
satu
mesyuarat
mengenai transaksi komersial;
(b) bahawa
beliau
telah
memaklumkan
kepada
Pemohon yang beliau tidak dapat hadir ke
Mahkamah
pada
12.11.2007
dan
Pemohon
bersetuju dengan permintaan beliau tersebut;
6
(c) bahawa Pemohon tidak mengetahui yang beliau
perlu hadir ke Mahkamah Perusahaan pada hari
berkenaan;
(d) bahawa beliau telah mengemukakan cadangan
penyelesaian kepada wakil Responden Pertama
sebelum tarikh perbicaraan;
(e) bahawa firma guamnya ditutup pada Hari Deepavali
dan atas alasan ini beliau tidak dapat menghantar
apa-apa surat kepada Mahkamah untuk meminta
suatu penangguhan; dan
(f) bahawa beliau dan Pemohon tidak mempunyai
sebarang niat untuk menghina Mahkamah.
[7]
Pada pandangan Mahkamah ini, Responden Kedua
telah melaksanakan budibicaranya secara kehakiman apabila
memutuskan bahawa alasan-alasan di atas adalah tidak
mewajarkan suatu penangguhan diberikan.
Tidak ada
Mahkamah yang akan memberi penangguhan atas alasan
bahawa
peguamcara
terlibat
perniagaan.
7
dengan
satu
mesyuarat
[8]
Apabila
Mahkamah
telah
menetapkan
tarikh
perbicaraan, pihak-pihak adalah dikehendaki bersedia untuk
mengendalikan kes mereka dan meneruskan pendengaran.
Mana-mana pihak yang ingin menangguhkan pendengaran kes
atas sebab-sebab yang tidak dapat dielakkan, hendaklah
mendapat kebenaran daripada Mahkamah terlebih dahulu
sama ada melalui surat atau faks dan memaklumkannya
kepada pihak yang satu lagi sebagaimana yang dikehendaki
oleh etika kepeguaman.
[9]
Persoalan
sama
ada
suatu
penangguhan
wajar
dibenarkan atau tidak adalah terletak dalam bidangkuasa
Pengerusi Mahkamah Perusahaan sepenuhnya. Dalam hal ini,
Presiden Mahkamah Perusahaan, menurut seksyen 28 Akta
Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, telah mengeluarkan Nota
Amalan No. 1 Tahun 1994 untuk dijadikan panduan. Antara
perkara-perkara yang ditekankan dalam Nota Panduan tersebut
ialah:
“6. Counsel
representing
parties
are
also
reminded that Rule 24 of the Legal Profession
(Practice and Etiquette) rules 1978 clearly
prescribes that advocate and solicitors shall
make every effort to be ready for trial on the
dates fixed for hearings of cases.
8
7.
In view of paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 above, it
shall ordinarily not be a very exceptional
circumstances for postponement that counsel
will be engaged in another court on the date
fixed for hearing of a case before the Court.
8.
It shall not be a very exceptional circumstance
that counsel is not prepared to carry on with
the hearing on the grounds that he had just be
retained for the case, that he had just been
assigned to handle the case or that he is not
personally handling the case.
……
14. Parties
and
representatives
their
are
counsel
reminded
and/or
that
any
postponement which has to be allowed will
cause unnecessary cost, expense and time to
all parties involved in the due administration of
justice:-
(a)
In
particular,
in
cases
of
alleged
wrongful dismissal, this may lead to high
quantum of awards of backpay and
reinstatement.
The Court has the
discretion to take such delays as are
9
occasioned by either of the parties to be
taken
into
account
in
either
the
diminution or enhancement of such
awards depending on who is the party
responsible for causing the delay.
(b)
Parties are also reminded that in other
industrial disputes, the long-standing
unresolved dispute is not in the best
interest
of
industrial
peace
and
harmony”.
[10]
Pihak-pihak yang ingin memohon satu penangguhan
kes yang telah ditetapkan untuk perbicaraan/pendengaran
hendaklah mengemukakan alasan-alasan atau sebab-sebab
yang kukuh dan munasabah. Dalam kes Abdul Mutalib Dato’
Seri Razak v The Malaysian Bar & Anor [1998] 2 CLJ 249,
Azmel Maamor H berkata:
“When a case is fixed for hearing the counsel who
appears in court must ensure that he is ready to
proceed for the hearing even though the counsel
intends to apply for a postponement because
granting of a postponement is at the discretion of
the court. In exercising the discretion the court
has to consider the merits of the application. The
court will only grant a postponement if the court
10
finds the reason given to be satisfactory.
Otherwise the postponement will not be granted.
For such purpose it would be prudent for
counsels to write in to the court at least three
days
before
the
hearing
applying
for
a
postponement. By doing so the counsel may be
able
to
know
whether
the
application
for
postponement is going to be granted or not. If the
court does not respond then the counsel must
assume that the application is not granted and be
ready for the hearing”.
[11]
Dalam kes Coshare Sdn Bhd v Wan Masnizam Wan
Mahmud [2006] 1 ILR 351, Pengerusi Mahkamah Perusahaan,
Rajendran Nayagam membuat pemerhatian yang sesuai
dinukilkan secara in extenso seperti berikut:
“The Industrial Court is far back as 1994 has had a
backlog of cases. In order to resolve this problem,
the government has now increased the number of
Industrial Court Chairman to clear the backlog but
unfortunately the practice of some counsels in
asking for an adjournment at the 11th hour and in
not following the proper procedure set out has
invariably placed the court in a difficult position
and has caused precious judicial time to be
wasted.
They have become an obstacle to the
11
speedy disposal of cases. The bulk of the cases
waiting
to
be
cleared
are
cases
involving
dismissals from employment, where the claim is
that the dismissal is without just cause or excuse
and the workman seeks reinstatement.
These
cases have been referred to the court by the
Honourable Minister. The Industrial Court has an
important task to perform bearing in mind that the
issue of dismissal has a constitutional dimension
in that the security of tenure is regarded as
another facet of the right to life itself… Apart from
this,
the
Supreme
Court
in
the
case
of
Kathiravelu Ganesan v Kojasa Holdings Bhd
[1997] 3 CLJ 777 of p 779 commented on the
quick disposal of cases as follows: ‘having regard
to the general scheme of the (Industrial Relations)
Act… the paramount concern (of Parliament) in
passing the Act was to ensure speedy disposal of
industrial disputes’.
It is for this reason that s
20(1) of the Act requires representation to be
made within (60) days of the dismissal and s 30(3)
requires the court to make its award without delay
and where practicable within (30) days from the
date of reference.
Therefore, time is of the
essence in dismissal cases. This is the spirit and
intendment of the Act. The reason for the strict
statutory requirement for making a claim within
12
(60) days was observed by Raja Azlan Shah C.J.
(as he then was) in the case of Fung Keong
Rubber Manufacturing (M) Sdn. Bhd. v. Lee
Eng Kiat & Ors [1980] 1 LNS 156; [1981] 1 MLJ
238.
‘quite clearly it would be extraordinarily
difficult for employers to keep the industry going if
claims for reinstatement on the grounds of
wrongful dismissal could be made many months or
years, instead of the statutory period, after
dismissal had taken place…’ In addition, undue
delay in disposing of a case very often results in
the remedy of reinstatement not being a suitable
one in view of changed circumstances between
the parties, although it is the primary remedy
envisaged by the Act. Hence, delay may cause
the workman’s security of tenure of service to be
compromised. Now, reverting to the instant case,
when it came up for mention on 15 September
2004, the court found the claimant’s counsel was
present but the company and their counsel were
absent. The court then proceeded to fix the case
for hearing on 26 & 27 October 2005. As stated
above, the court and the claimant’s solicitors had
informed the company’s solicitors of the hearing
on 26 & 27 October 2005. Although they knew
that the case was fixed for hearing commencing
on 26 October 2005, they did not act until one day
13
prior to the hearing on 25 October 2005. As in the
Syarikat Pasir’s case, at the 11th hour, they faxed
a letter to the claimant’s solicitors requesting them
to mention the case on their behalf and to seek an
adjournment. They gave two reasons for seeking
an adjournment. One reason was that they were
negotiating with their client to settle the case. The
second reason was that their counsel was
engaged in another court on 26 October 2005.
They assumed that by sending the fax that an
adjournment would be granted as of right and they
did not attend the hearing on 26 October 2005. As
was stated in the Abdul Mutalib’s case, it was
most improper for the counsel to think that by
faxing the letter, the adjournment would have been
granted. This would preempt the decision of the
court. When the case was fixed for hearing, the
counsel should have been ready to proceed, until
his application for adjournment was granted.
Since the granting of an adjournment is at the sole
discretion of court and in exercising the discretion
the court has to consider the merits of the
application, the counsel should have applied in
good time. By doing so, the counsel would have
known whether an adjournment would have been
granted.
In the instant case, the company’s
counsel did not apply for an adjournment in good
14
time and did not bother to turn up in court on the
hearing date.
Further, the reasons given for
adjournment are also not tenable. The first reason
that they were negotiating with their client to settle
the case does not hold water.
The claimant’s
counsel said that to date, they had not received
any offer either from the company or their
solicitors. The second reason given is also not
acceptable in view of Practice Note No. 1of 1994,
which states that being engaged in another court
on the date fixed for hearing is not an exceptional
circumstance. The company’s solicitors have only
themselves to blame as can be seen from their
conduct of this case.
Right from the start, the
company’s solicitors had failed to appear and
represent their client on the required days in
breach of Rules 6 and 24. Instead, they relied on
the claimant’s solicitors.
In stark contrast, the
claimant’s solicitors had religiously attended court
right up to completion of the case. Finally, with the
greatest of respect, it is precisely this kind of
attitude as displayed by the company’s solicitors in
the instant case which creates and headache for
the court to seriously organize its very busy
schedule,
so
expeditiously
that
without
cases
are
keeping
waiting for years for an award.”
15
disposed
the
of
claimants
[12]
Dalam kes Aladdin bin Mohd Hashim v Esso
Production Inc [1977] MLJU 165 Mahkamah Tinggi telah
membatalkan Award Mahkamah Perusahaan kerana Pemohon
dalam kes ini telah menjadi mangsa peguamcaranya yang
menarik diri. Abdul Kadir Sulaiman (sebagaimana dia ketika
itu) berkata:
“Under the article of the Federal Constitution the
subject shall be allowed to consult and be
defended by a legal practitioner of his choice. But
this has been qualified to mean a legal practitioner
who is able and willing.
In this case of the
Applicant, his counsel has disabled himself by
withdrawing from the case because the Court had
refused his request for an adjournment as he was
committed elsewhere and the Court, on the other
hand, could not be waiting for him to be free to
attend to the case of the Applicant.
But by
disabling himself from the case of the Applicant,
the Applicant in the circumstances that befell him
cannot be deprived of his right to a legal
representation. No doubt his solicitor appeared to
be delaying the proceedings and the counsel
remained his legal representative for the case
scheduled to re-commence on 18th July 1994. He
received this notification only on or about 12th July
1994 leaving him hardly six days to look around
16
for a new solicitor to represent him on 18th July
1994 as the Court would not grant an adjournment
any longer”.
[13]
Fakta dalam kes semasa adalah jauh berbeza dan
berlainan dari kes di atas.
Peguamcara dalam kes semasa
boleh mewakili Pemohon tetapi beliau telah memilih untuk
menghadiri satu mesyuarat perniagaan di Sudan tanpa
memaklumkan kepada Mahkamah. Pemohon juga bersetuju
dengan
permintaan
peguamcara
untuk
perdengaran/perbicaraan di Mahkamah.
menangguhkan
Oleh itu, Pemohon
bukanlah menjadi mangsa peguamcara seperti apa yang
berlaku dalam kes di atas.
[14]
Dalam keadaan yang wujud dalam kes semasa,
bolehlah
sebenarnya
disimpulkan
tidak
bahawa
menghormati
peguamcara
Mahkamah.
Pemohon
Justeru,
Responden Kedua tidak mempunyai pilihan tetapi menolak
permohonan Pemohon untuk menghidupkan semula tindakan
tersebut. Tidak ada fakta material kukuh dikemukakan kepada
Mahkamah Perusahaan yang membolehkan Responden Kedua
memberi pertimbangan yang wajar terhadap permohonan
Pemohon.
17
Kesimpulan
[15]
Mahkamah
ini
perlu
bersikap
berhati-hati
untuk
membatalkan sesuatu keputusan/Award yang dibuat oleh
Mahkamah Perusahaan dalam melaksanakan budibicaranya
yang
berkaitan
dengan
perbicaraan/pendengaran
hadapannya.
pejalanan
sesuatu
Melainkan
pihak
kes
atau
yang
yang
prosiding
berada
berkaitan
di
dapat
membuktikan bahawa pelaksanaan budibicara tersebut telah
dilaksanakan secara sewenang-wenangnya atau “grave abuse
of
discretion”
telah
berlaku,
budibicara
tersebut
wajar
dikekalkan demi menjamin kelicinan pengendalian kes-kes
yang melibatkan penamatan perkhidmatan.
[16]
Dalam kes ini, dengan hormat, Pemohon telah gagal
menunjukkan penyalahgunaan budibicara yang dimaksudkan.
Bahkan, jika permohonan ini dibenarkan, ia akan memberi
isyarat yang salah kepada peguamcara-peguamcara terlibat
bahawa mereka boleh tidak mengendahkan atau tidak hadir
pada tarikh perbicaraan ditetapkan dengan bebas tanpa
hukuman (“with impunity”). Hal ini adalah bertentangan dengan
kepentingan
pentadbiran
dan
Perusahaan.
18
keadilan
di
Mahkamah
[17] Berdasarkan alasan-alasan di atas, permohonan ini
didapati tidak bermerit dan ditolak. Tiada perintah mengenai
kos.
Bertarikh: 28 JUN 2010
(DATO’ HAJI MOHD ZAWAWI BIN SALLEH)
HAKIM
MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA
KUALA LUMPUR
Bagi pihak Pemohon
: S Bala Subramaniam
Tetuan SBS Maniam Nohairi & Azizan
Peguambela & Peguamcara
Kuala Lumpur.
Bagi pihak Responden
Pertama
: Murali Achan
Tetuan K Kulasekar Achan & Associate
Peguambela & Peguamcara
Petaling Jaya
Selangor Darul Ehsan.
19