INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO. : 1/1-357/17 BETWEEN NORAZLAN BIN ABDULLAH AND SYOR BERNAS SDN. BHD. AWARD NO : 1011 OF CORAM : — YATUANISHAK BIN MOHD YUSOFF - PRESIDENT EN. KAMARUL BAHARIN BIN MANSOR - EMPLOYEES’ PANEL EN. NOR FAIZAL BIN MD. NOR - EMPLOYER'S PANEL VENUE Industrial Court, Kuala Lumpur. DATE OF FILING FORM S 8" March 2017. DATE OF MENTION : 13! April 2017, DATE OF HEARING 14" June 2017. REPRESENTATION : Encik Mohamed Fadly bin Zakariya Messrs Abdul Rahman Azubir & Co. Counsel for the Complainant. Respondent - not present.This is an application for an order of non-compliance of Award No: 664/2016 (the said Award) which was handed down in a dismissal Case No. 19/4- 938/14 (the said dismissal case). The trial of the said dismissal case was conducted ex-parte for failure of the Respondent or its representative to be present during the hearing dates. ‘The said award was handed down on the 26" May 2016 which is in favour of the Complainant. There is no pending Judicial Review against the said Award. Since the handing down of the said Award there is no sign of any attempts by the Respondent to comply with the said Award. Asa result, the Complainant is making this application pursuant to section 56 (2) of the Industrial Relation Act 1967 for this Court to issue an order directing the Respondent to comply with the said Award. This proceeding was fixed for hearing on the 14" June 2017 and notice informing of the said hearing date was sent to both its business and registered address. The saic the business and registered address are as stated i documents extracted from the Companies Commission of Malaysia. (See: Enclosure - 4). Based on the addresses stated in “Enclosure - 4”, the notice of hearing to the business address was sent by AR. Registered, but the AR. Card was returned with a remark “PINDAH’. (See: Enclosure - 12).10. At the same time the notice of hearing was sent to the registered address of the Company by A.R. Registered and the A.R. card was returned with the recipient's signature as well as the Identity Card number on it. (See: Enclosure - 13). Thus, Enclosure - 13 is a clear acknowledgment of receipt indicating the Respondent had received the notice of hearing. (See: Enclosure -8). On the 14" June 2017 when this proceeding was called for hearing, the Respondent nor its representative was nowhere to be present. Learned Counsel for the Complainant strongly objected to further postponement of this proceeding. ‘The refusal to attend the hearing of this proceeding despite notice of hearing being served demonstrates the lackadaisical attitude of the Respondent. With the above facts, this Court is reluctant to further adjourn this proceeding as there is no guarantee that the Respondent would appear for hearing in the future. This Court opined that further adjournment would not serve any purposes. Instead, it will only prolong the matter and putting the Complainant into unnecessary stress. Unless and until the Respondent is able to show the special circumstances why it failed to comply with the said Award, the Complainant must be allowed to enjoy the fruits of the litigation and recover the amount awarded. (See: Univein Sdn Bhd v Malaysia Building Society Bhd [2003] 4 MLJ 618). It is must be made known that this Court will not make a practice of depriving a successful litigant of the fruits of his litigationand any semblance to deprive litigant’s rights to savor the fruit of his victory must immediately be struck down. Hence, it is ordered that the Respondent to comply with the said Award within ‘one (1) month from the date of this Award. HANDED DOWN AND DATED THIS 19™ DAY OF JULY 2017 (ISHAK BIN MOHD YUSOFF ) ‘SIDENT INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA