KUALA LUMPUR (Feb 29): The Court of Appeal (COA) reversed a decision of the High Court, which dismissed the judicial review application of a man challenging the decision of the director general of industrial relations (DGIR) that closed his file without referring to the Industrial Court.

In a landmark and unanimous decision on Wednesday, a three-judge bench led by Datuk Lee Swee Seng, Datuk Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali and Datuk Lim Chong Fong allowed the appeal of Shankarkumar Sanpathkumar, and reversed the dismissal of his judicial review application by the High Court.

Lee, in delivering the decision of the COA, said that the Industrial Relations Act 1967 being a social beneficent legislation must be interpreted broadly.

This decision stemmed from a complaint referred by Shankarkumar to the DGIR against his former employer, who had terminated him for lobbying for a competitor loss adjusting firm and acting in direct conflict with the interest of the company. Shankarkumar sought reinstatement by the said company.

The employer initially refused reinstatement in a conciliation meeting, but later changed its mind.

However, Shankarkumar declined the reinstatement, since the employer earlier refused reinstatement in the conciliation stage.

He claimed that the reinstatement of work was without admission as to liability, and the memorandum of agreement prepared by the DGIR also stated that the reinstatement by the company was without admission as to liability.

His other reason for the refusal was that the company had given him instructions to report directly to its chief executive officer upon reinstatement.

Shankarkumar also refused reinstatement, as his wife, who was also an employee of the same company, was terminated one day after his reference to the DGIR.

The latest decision of the COA was the first decision after an amendment was made to Section 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act, which was amended via the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2020.

The amendment stipulates that the human resources minister does not have the discretion to refer representations to the court, as the power to do so falls solely with the DGIR.

The DGIR may then refer the representations to the courts if satisfied that there is no likelihood of the representations being settled.

Former human resources minister M Kulasegaran stated in 2018 that he wanted the power of the minister taken away, and that unsettled reconciliation will automatically be referred to the court.

Shankarkumar was represented by lawyers Ranjan N Chandran, VK Raj, Rani Nadesan, Ananthan Vijayakumar and Vinitha Laksmy Mohan.

The DGIR, meanwhile, was represented by senior federal counsel Khalijah Mohd Khalid and federal counsel Jeevitha Raja from the Attorney General’s Chambers.