IRA ‘is a piece of beneficent social legislation by which Parliament intends the prevention and speedy

resolution of disputes between employers and their workmen’. 12 See, for example, Pan Global
Textiles Bhd. Pulau Pinang v Ang Beng Teik [2002] 1 CLJ 181

Gopal Sri Ram JCA in Kathiravelu Ganesan & Anor. v Kojasa Holdings Bhd. 33: ‘First, there is the
conciliatory level. Here, all that the DirectorGeneral of Industrial Relations is concerned with is
whether the parties are able to settle their differences. All that is required to activate the
conciliatory jurisdiction is a complaint under s. 20(1) of the Act. Consequently, there is no question
of there being any wider jurisdiction at this stage. 33 [1997] 3 CLJ 777 (SC).

Eastern Mining Metals v Wan

Absah [1974] 2 MLJ 210
In this case the deceased was
employed by the appellants as
a rocker operator. He died of a
heart attack
after he had travelled to the
work site on the day in
question. The arbitrator
decided that the deceased's
death was due to an accident
which arose out of and in the
course of his employment and
awarded to the
respondents a sum of $7,200
as compensation. The
appellants appeal. The appeal
was dismissed.
Though the company doctor
had said that the cause of death
was an ordinary illness and
that his old age,
diabetes and blood pressure
had contributed to it, he also
said that the "nature of the
work of the deceased
as a rocker operator for the
past 15 years and 6 days was
the contributory cause of the
hastening of his
heart attack" and I therefore
agree with the learned
arbitrator's finding that "the
deceased's death was due
to an accident within the
meaning and in the context of
the Workmen's Compensation
Ordinance, even
though it was not
attributable to any sudden
strain having been put on
the deceased on the day in
question.
Eastern Mining Metals v Wan Absah [1974] 2 MLJ 210 In this case the deceased was employed by
the appellants as a rocker operator. He died of a heart attackafter he had travelled to the work site
on the day in question. The arbitrator decided that the deceased'sdeath was due to an accident
which arose out of and in the course of his employment and awarded to therespondents a sum of
$7,200 as compensation. The appellants appeal. The appeal was dismissed.Though the company
doctor had said that the cause of death was an ordinary illness and that his old age,diabetes and
blood pressure had contributed to it, he also said that the "nature of the work of the deceasedas a
rocker operator for the past 15 years and 6 days was the contributory cause of the hastening of
hisheart attack" and I therefore agree with the learned arbitrator's finding that "the deceased's
death was dueto an accident within the meaning and in the context of the Workmen's
Compensation Ordinance, eventhough it was not attributable to any sudden strain having been
put on the deceased on the day inquestion.

Search for courses, books or documents

 Sign in Register


P. Notes Socso- Labor LAW

 University

Multimedia University
 Course

Labour Law (ULB 2612)

 Academic year

2015/2016
helpful00
Share
Comments
 Please sign in or register to post comments.

Students also viewed

Individual Statutory Rights Affecting THE Course of EmploymentSocso

- Lecture notes 4P. Notes Contract OF EmploymentP. Notes

DismissalP. Notes Express TERMTrade union

Other related documents

Integrated VLSI Assignment ReportAu1Topic 6 - BOD ( Concept of

risk)346596 2010 UIL2712 Assignment Question &

GuidelinesIntroduction to Islamic lawIslamic law additional

 noteDismissals MM - Mind MapDismissal NotesExpress, ImpliedL3B -

Contract of employmentConvey CASE Scenario - Lecture notes

4Payment of Salaries During the MCOTutorial 10 EPF Complete

answersTutorial 3 Implied termsOng and others v Ping 2017Gpo L

Notes - Chapter 1Industrial Disputes NotesPayment for wages -

journal

Preview text
(SOCSO) is to provide protection for ‘employees’ and their families
against economic and social distress in situations where the
employees sustain injury or death. - S 3(1) of SOCSO: (SOCSO) is
applicable to all industries. - S 3(3) of SOCSO: (SOCSO) NOT applied to
persons described in the First Schedule. - Employee NOT fall
under First Schedule of SOCSO are eligible to apply the SOCSO and its
advantages. PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF THE AMENDMENTS TO SOCSO
ACT -EMPLOYEES’ SOCIAL SECURITY (AMENDMENT] ACT 2016
Amendment of S 5 of SOCSO S 5 - All employees to be insured: (1)
all employees in industries, disregard of the amount of wages, shall
be insured in the manner provided by this Act. Amendment to First
Schedule - The Paragraph (1) of the First Schedule is deleted.
APPLICABILITY OF THE ACT However, ‘employee’ in this case does not
include a person who is described in the First Schedule, as follows; A
person whose wages more than RM3,000 a month (But once an employee
made contribution, he remains liable to make contribution always, even if
his wages more than RM3,000 later)
Categories of employees exempted from SOCSO's coverage: 
Government employees  Domestic servants  Self-employed persons 
Business owner and spouses of sole- proprietorship or partnership 
Casual Employment and not for employer’s industry purposes  Any
member of the Malaysian Armed Forces  Any police officer  Any person
detained in any prison, Henry Gurney School, etc.  A tributer – who is
permitted to win minerals or produce of any kind from ...  Foreign
workers ( amended ) Categories of employees exempted from
SOCSO's coverage (Foreign Workers):  Used since 1st January 2019,
Malaysian employers register their foreign workers and make required
contributions to SOCSO, which due on 15 February 2019.  For foreign
workers, only employers required to contribute to SOCSO. The foreign
workers do not have to.  Employers expected to contribute 1.25% of
each foreign worker’s monthly wage to SOCSO monthly.
Insured Person - S 2(11) of SOCSO: who is or was an employee in
respect of whom contributions are, were or could be payable under the
Act.
• Abdul Rahim bin Mohammad v Kejuruteraan Besi dan
Pembinaan Zaman Kini
• The court held that an employee still as an insured person
even though he was registered with the SOCSO
office after two days of the accident and did not make any contributions
at that time.
• Liang Jee Keng v. Yik Kee Restaurant Sdn. Bhd.
 An insured person is a person who is or was an employee in an
industry to one in which the Act applies and who contributed to the
insurance scheme. In Liang Jee Keng v. Yik Kee Restaurant Sdn.
Bhd. The employee was an insured person even though he was
registered with the SOCSO office two days after the accident and no
contributions were made at that time.
SOCSO’s Protection Schemes - SOCSO administer 2 types of social
protection schemes: Employment Injury Scheme and Invalidity
Pension Scheme. - The Employment Injury Scheme: protection to
employees who involved in accidents arising out of and in the course of
employment occupational diseases and also commuting accident.
- Invalidity Pension Scheme: (24) hours coverage for workers from
invalidity or dies irrespective of the cause of death. Next, to ensure
payments made to workers and dependents unexpected incident occurs.
These schemes for benefits of invalidity pension, invalidity grant,
survivors’ pension, rehabilitation, funeral benefit, constant attendance
allowance and educational loan. Employment Injury Scheme for coverage
of accidents that occur while traveling (commuting accident), arising out
of and in the course of employment and occupational diseases. Doctors
decides whether workers medically unfit under the SOCSO scheme. CASE
LAW
Ketua Pengarah Pertubuhan Keselamatan Sosial v Jusoh
Abu Bakar [2003] 1 CLJ 383
On his way from his permanent house in Teluk Ketapang,
Kuala Terengganu to his leased house in Paka,
Dungun, the respondent, an insured citizen under the
Employees' Social Security Act 1969 ('the Act'), met
with an accident. Before proceeding to his place of work at
Lapangan Terbang Kertih in his employer's
motor van, he had to stop at his rented home to change into
his uniform.
The respondent claimed for benefits under the Act. The
appellant rejected the claim on the ground that the
accident was not employment injury under s 2(6) of the
Act. Thereafter, the respondent appealed to the
Social Security Appellate Board (‘the Board’) contending
that the accident was employment injury which
arose out of and in the course of his employment pursuant
to s 24(1)(a) of the Act. The Board allowed the
respondent's appeal, hence this appeal from the appellant.
*This case concerned regulation 17(1) (‘Regulation 17(1)’)
of the Employees’ Social Security (Social
Security Appellate Board Procedure) Regulations 1976
which provides that there shall be no appeal to the
High Court from an order of the Board unless the order
involves a ‘substantial question of law’.
Held , allowing the appeal:
* learned judge, Nik Hashim J (as he then was), agreed
with the appellant’s contention that the decision
involves a substantial question of law as it concerns the
interpretation of certain sections of the Act and their
application to the facts of this case.
commencement of the proceedings that it involves a
substantial question of law to justify the hearing of
the appeal.
dismissing the appeal with costs: (1) ESSA 1969 is
primarily aimed to protect employees and to provide
them with benefits within their scheme of insurance. ESSA
1969 is a social legislation that must be
liberally construed and in almost all cases in favour of the
beneficiary, provided there are no violations of
its provisions (see para 9); Ketua Pengarah Pertubuhan
Keselamatan Sosial v Mohd Zaili Ali [2003] 4 CLJ
165 and Ketua Pengarah Pertubuhan Keselamatan Sosial v
Rajaparameswari Marimuthu [2004] 4 CLJ 528
followed. (2) An employee’s travel from his home to the
work place and from the work place to his home
would constitute a journey directly connected with his
employment. During such travel, deviations to have
a cup of tea, buy groceries or to stop at a friend’s house
would not necessarily mean that it was not directly
connected to his employment. It all depended on the facts
(see para 10). (3) The appellant may challenge
the decision of the Board provided it could satisfy the
criteria set out under reg 17 of the Employee’s
Social Security (Social Security Appellate Board
Procedure) Regulations 1976 (‘SSR 1976’). The SSR
1976 places a higher burden on the appellant in that the
appellant must satisfy the court at the
commencement of the proceedings that the matter involves
substantial questions of law to justify the
hearing of the appeal (see para 10); Syarikat Kenderaan
Melayu Kelantan Bhd v Transport Workers’
Union [1995] 2 MLJ 317referred.Observation: In the
instant case, the memorandum of appeal filed by the
appellant did not frame the issue of law as required by
ESSA 1969. This was a material non-compliance
which warranted the appeal to be dismissed. However, the
wider interest of justice demanded that
technical non-compliance of the rules be disregarded and
the matter be heard to uphold substantive justice
unless the respondent could demonstrate that the non-
compliance was of a nature which could not be
rectified or amended or could cause substantive prejudice
which could not be compensated by costs.
Ketua Pengarah Pertubuhan Keselamatan Sosial v
Vadivelan a/l Sandara Saigara [2009] 1 MLJ 238
* VT Singam J held that the appeal in this case, which
concerned the interpretation of a particular section
of the Act, must involve a substantive question of law. The
court clarified that an appeal that is purely on a
question of fact cannot be brought to the High Court. It
was added that where a question involves mixed
law and facts, the court cannot decide the appeal in the
abstract alone on the question of law and may have
to consider the facts in order to decide the substantive
question of law.
Doctrine of notional extension
The Doctrine of Notional Extension was introduced to help
the court in deciding whether the accident
arises out of and in the course of his employment. Under
this doctrine, the court will hold that the accident
is within the scope of SOCSO, if the employee can show
that there was a nexus between the accident and
his work. The nexus can be direct or indirect in connection
with the following:
(a) the accident or the injury with the employment;
Eastern Mining Metals v Wan Absah [1974] 2 MLJ 210
In this case the deceased was employed by the appellants
as a rocker operator. He died of a heart attack
after he had travelled to the work site on the day in
question. The arbitrator decided that the deceased's
death was due to an accident which arose out of and in the
course of his employment and awarded to the
respondents a sum of $7,200 as compensation. The
appellants appeal. The appeal was dismissed.
Though the company doctor had said that the cause of
death was an ordinary illness and that his old age,
diabetes and blood pressure had contributed to it, he also
said that the "nature of the work of the deceased
as a rocker operator for the past 15 years and 6 days was
the contributory cause of the hastening of his
heart attack" and I therefore agree with the learned
arbitrator's finding that "the deceased's death was due
to an accident within the meaning and in the context of the
Workmen's Compensation Ordinance, even
though it was not attributable to any sudden strain having
been put on the deceased on the day in
question."
Golden Hope Rubber Estate v Muniamah [1965] 31 MLJ 5
This was an appeal against the award of compensation in
respect of the death of a field worker employed
by the appellants. The arbitrator under the Workmen’s
Compensation Ordinance 1952 found that the
deceased was working with other labourers in cleaning a
drain in the estate with a changkol and that, after
half an hour in the course of the work, he suddenly
collapsed and died. The medical evidence was that
death was caused by heart failure and that the exertion of
work had contributed to the death of the
deceased. The arbitrator held that the death was an
accident arising out of and in the course of the
deceased’s employment and he made an award of
compensation in the sum of RM2,880. The appellants
appealed against thisaward.
It was held by the court that where the death of a person
from disease is accelerated by some particular act
of exertion, the death can properly be said to be caused by
an accident and where the contributory cause is
furnished by and in the course of an injured workman's
employment, he is entitled to compensation under
the Ordinance.
Ketua Pengarah Pertubuhan Keselamatan Sosial v Gow
Soo Tan [2004] 3 CLJ 449 - sports activity
representing employer
In this case, the court held that the injury, which occurred
whilst the employee was participating in an
annual sport, organized by his employer, was not an
employment injury because there was no nexus
between the injury and his work.
Ketua Pengarah Pertubuhan Keselamatan Sosial v Nor
Azian bte Adnan [2004] 3 MLJ 193
The respondent, a clerk attached to Bank of Commerce
(M) Sdn Bhd, is an 'insured person' within the
meaning of the Employees Social Security Act, 1969 ('the
Act'). She was selected to represent her employer in
a netball tournament to be held between banks and was
given time-off by her employer to attend practice
sessions that usually took place during and after office
hours. On 15 June 1999, while the respondent was
undergoing netball training at the Titiwangsa Lake
Gardens netball court, she had a fall and was injured. This
incident took place at about 6.45pm. The appellants held
that this incident was not a case of 'employment
injury' within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the said Act
due to the fact that the accident that was sustained
by the respondent while playing netball, happened after
office hours and playing netball was not part of her
job as a clerk. The respondent, dissatisfied with the
decision, appealed to the Social Security Appeal Board
('the Board') pursuant to s 84 of the said Act. The Board
allowed the appeal, but the appellants appealed to this
court. The issue considered was whether the accident arose
'in the course of employment'.
Held, appeal was dismissed with costs:
● Firstly, the respondent had to undergo netball training,
not for herself but on the instruction of her employer
and for the benefit of the employer. Her employer was
fully aware of the training she was undergoing and
fully consented to it. The court was of the opinion that all
actions done by the respondent were 'incidental to
this contract of service although she might be under no
duty to do it' and the injury sustained arose in the
course of employment and was 'employment injury' as had
been decided by the Board. The decision that was
made by the Board was at a departmental level and
pursuant to Section 17 of the Employment Social Security
(Social Security Appellate Board) Regulations 1976, the
court would only intervene with a decision of Board,
if it was clear that there was a misdirection. In this case
there was none. Therefore, there was no valid reason
for the court to interfere with the decision at this stage.
Ketua Pengarah Pertubuhan Keselamatan Sosial v Philip
bin Felix @ Philip bin Sintik [2004] 5 MLJ 251 -
The respondent was employed as a driver by Koperasi
Pembangunan Desa ('KPD'), an industry registered
with the Social Security Organisation ('SOCSO'). KPD
organized its Annual Sports Carnival at Kota
Kinabalu from 29 November to 2 December 1996. The
respondent was selected to play football and his
participation was made compulsory by KPD. The
respondent sustained a fracture of his leg in the course
of the football match as a result of an accident. The
accident occurred on a Saturday. The single issue that
arose in the appeal was whether the injury sustained by the
respondent was an employment injury within
the meaning of s 2(6) of the Employees' Social Security
Act 1969 ('the Act'). The appellant contended that
 rehabilitation,
 funeral benefit,
 constant attendance allowance
 educational loan accidents while traveling (commuting accident),
arising out of and in the course of employment and occupational
diseases.
 SOCSO’s Protection Schemes – Contributions First Category*
 Employees under 60 years old , contributions by employers and
employees for Employment Injury Scheme and Invalidity Scheme.
 Rate of contribution of this category comprises 1.75% of employer’s
share and 0.5% of employees’ monthly wages based on the
contribution schedule.
 Note: All employees who under 60 years old, contribute under
the First Category except those have attained 55 years old
and no prior contributions before reach 55 due to non-
eligibility under SOCSO.
 Second Category*
 Rate of contribution of this category is 1.25% of employees’
monthly wages, payable by the employer, under the contribution
schedule.
 Employees who reached 60 years old covered under this category
for Employment Injury Scheme only.
  Note:* For new employees at 55 years old must be covered under
the Second Category.
 CONTRIBUTION'S RATES*
 Principal employer must monthly contribute for each employee
according to rates specified under the Act.
 Employee's share of 0.5% of wages paid for coverage under
Invalidity Pension Scheme while employer pays
1.75% for Employment Injury Scheme and Invalidity Pension Scheme.
 Rate of contribution based on monthly wage of employee in
accordance to SOCSO Contribution Schedule.
 Contributions made from first month the employee is employed.
 BENEFITS*
 Invalidity pension* ; Disablement benefit (temporary and
permanent) An invalidity pension comprises periodical payments to
an insured person in the case he is certified invalid by medical
board. Stated in Section 15(a) of the Employees Social Security Act
1969. Section 16 of the Act, an insured person considered as
suffering from invalidity, if because of a specific condition of
permanent nature, he is incapable any gainful activity. A person
deemed to be incapable of engaging in gainful activity, if incapable
of earning 1/3 of the customary earnings of mentally and physically
sound person with similar qualifications and training. Under these
conditions;
 Must suffering from invalidity as defined above;
 Below 55 years old; and
 Completed either a full or a reduced qualifying period. Amount
given;
 The pension amount depending on whether they have completed a
full or reduced qualifying period.
 S 17 of SOCSO* defines them as follows;
 a) Full Qualifying Period*
 Employee’s monthly contribution to SOCSO paid at least 24
months within a period of 40 consecutive months before the
month where their invalidity notice is received by SOCSO
 Their monthly contribution paid for not less than 2/3 of the
complete months comprised when contribution first became
payable and Invalidity Notice is received by SOCSO (total number of
monthly contributions that paid within that period must be at least
24 months ).
 b) Reduced Qualifying Period Employee’s monthly contributions to
SOCSO paid before 1/3 of the number of completed
months* (comprised of the period when contribution first become
payable and Invalidity Notice is received by SOCSO). Total number
of monthly contributions paid during the period must be at
least 24 months.
 Invalidity Grant*
  S21 of the Act : outright payment paid to employee who made at
least 12 monthly contributions.
 If employee is severely incapacitated and requires constant
personal attendance, the recipient of Invalidity Pension is entitled to
Constant Attendance Allowance. The Medical Board will decide the
eligibility to receive this allowance and pay the recipient of the
benefit directly. Maximum of RM500 per month, the benefit is 40%
of the rate of Invalidity Pension.
• S. Constantine v Social Security Organisation [1998] 1
MLJ 160
•
Dependents’ benefit Funeral benefit/ expenses; Constant-attendance
allowance; Medical treatment; Rehabilitation
benefit BENEFITS===Disablement Benefits Disablement benefits may
be divided into two; 1. Temporary 2. Permanent Stated under Section 2
of the Act. Section 2(23): temporary means condition from an
employment injury which; Requires medical treatment; and causes an
employee temporarily incapable of doing work. Section 2(17): Permanent
includes; Permanent partial disablement. Disablement of a permanent
nature reduces the earning capacity of an employee, in respect of
employment that he was able to undertake. Section 2(18): Permanent
total disablement which disables of all work he was capable to
performed. BENEFITS===Employment Injury
 DownloadSave

THE EMPLOYEES SOCIAL

SECURITY ACT (SOCSO)
1969
This was an appeal against the
award of compensation in
respect of the death of a field
worker employed
by the appellants. The
arbitrator under the
Workmen’s Compensation
Ordinance 1952 found that the
deceased was working with
other labourers in cleaning a
drain in the estate with a
changkol and that, after
half an hour in the course of
the work, he suddenly
collapsed and died. The
medical evidence was that
death was caused by heart
failure and that the exertion of
work had contributed to the
death of the
deceased. The arbitrator held
that the death was an accident
arising out of and in the
course of the
deceased’s employment and he
made an award of
compensation in the sum of
RM2,880. The appellants
appealed against thisaward.
It was held by the court that
where the death of a person
from disease is accelerated by
some particular act
of exertion, the death can
properly be said to be caused
by an accident and where the
contributory cause is
furnished by and in the course
of an injured workman's
employment, he is entitled to
compensation under
the Ordinance.
Ketua Pengarah Pertubuhan
Keselamatan Sosial v Gow
Soo Tan [2004] 3 CLJ 449 -
sports activity
representing employer
In this case, the court held that
the injury, which occurred
whilst the employee was
participating in an
annual sport, organized by his
employer, was not an
employment injury because
there was no nexus
between the injury and his
work.
Ketua Pengarah Pertubuhan
Keselamatan Sosial v Nor
Azian bte Adnan [2004] 3
MLJ 193
The respondent, a clerk
attached to Bank of Commerce
(M) Sdn Bhd, is an 'insured
person' within the
meaning of the Employees
Social Security Act, 1969 ('the
Act'). She was selected to
represent her employer in
a netball tournament to be held
between banks and was given
time-off by her employer to
attend practice
sessions that usually took
place during and after office
hours. On 15 June 1999, while
the respondent was
undergoing netball training at
the Titiwangsa Lake Gardens
netball court, she had a fall and
was injured. This
incident took place at about
6.45pm. The appellants held
that this incident was not a
case of 'employment
injury' within the meaning of
Section 2(6) of the said Act
due to the fact that the accident
that was sustained
by the respondent while
playing netball, happened after
office hours and playing
netball was not part of her
job as a clerk. The respondent,
dissatisfied with the decision,
appealed to the Social Security
Appeal Board
('the Board') pursuant to s 84
of the said Act. The Board
allowed the appeal, but the
appellants appealed to this
court. The issue considered
was whether the accident arose
'in the course of employment'.
Held, appeal was dismissed
with costs:
● Firstly, the respondent had
to undergo netball training, not
for herself but on the
instruction of her employer
and for the benefit of the
employer. Her employer was
fully aware of the training she
was undergoing and
fully consented to it. The court
was of the opinion that all
actions done by the respondent
were 'incidental to
this contract of service
although she might be under
no duty to do it' and the injury
sustained arose in the
course of employment and was
'employment injury' as had
been decided by the Board.
The decision that was
made by the Board was at a
departmental level and
pursuant to Section 17 of the
Employment Social Security
(Social Security Appellate
Board) Regulations 1976, the
court would only intervene
with a decision of Board,
if it was clear that there was a
misdirection. In this case there
was none. Therefore, there was
no valid reason
for the court to interfere with
the decision at this stage.
Ketua Pengarah Pertubuhan
Keselamatan Sosial v Philip
bin Felix @ Philip bin Sintik
[2004] 5 MLJ 251 -
The respondent was employed
as a driver by Koperasi
Pembangunan Desa ('KPD'),
an industry registered
with the Social Security
Organisation ('SOCSO'). KPD
organized its Annual Sports
Carnival at Kota
Kinabalu from 29 November
to 2 December 1996. The
respondent was selected to
play football and his
participation was made
compulsory by KPD. The
respondent sustained a fracture
of his leg in the course
of the football match as a
result of an accident. The
accident occurred on a
Saturday. The single issue that
arose in the appeal was
whether the injury sustained
by the respondent was an
employment injury within
the meaning of s 2(6) of the
Employees' Social Security
Act 1969 ('the Act'). The
appellant contended that
THE EMPLOYEES SOCIAL
SECURITY ACT (SOCSO)
1969
the Board had erred in
law in concluding that the
accident arose in the
course of the respondent's
employment as a
driver.The Board found in
favor of the respondent.
Hence, this appeal.
Held, upholding the decision
of the Board and dismissing
the appeal with costs:The
purpose of the Act is
to provide social security.
Accordingly, it follows that s
2(6) of the Act should not be
given a restrictive
and literal interpretation. The
respondent’s participation in
the football match, made
compulsory by his
employer, is a duty imposed
on the respondent as a member
of his employer’s staff. It is
inconceivable
that an employee who
encounters an accident by
reason of compulsory
participation in any such
activity,
at the behest of the employer,
can be said to do so at his own
peril and denied the protection
of the Act.
In all the three cases, the
courts held that participating in
the sports organized by the
employer were
incidental to the employment.
As such the injury was an
injury that arises out of and in
the course of his
employment.
(b) the injury and the working
hours
More liberal approach. As seen
in the case below:
Seng Guan Co v Lim Choon
Keok [1073] 2 MLJ 197
This was an appeal from the
decision of the President,
Sessions Court, Muar, sitting
as arbitrator under the
Workmen’s Compensation
Ordinance 1952. The facts
were that the deceased was a
foreman and chief
engine driver employed by the
appellants in their factory. On
the day in question after he
finished his shift
duty and had gone home, he
was recalled to the factory to
repair a machine which was
out of order. On
his way to the factory, the
deceased went to a sampan in
the Muar river to collect his
basket of tools and
while coming out of the
sampan he fell into the river
and was drowned. The
respondents, the wife and
children of the deceased,
applied for workmen’s
compensation. The arbitrator
held that the accident arose
out of and in the course of the
deceased’s employment and
he awarded to the defendants
a sum of
RM7,200 as compensation.
The appellants appealed, the
appeal was dismissed
The court held that the learned
arbitrator was correct to say
that he was of the opinion that
this difference
"did not mean much" in
deciding the question whether
the accident arose out of and in
the course of
employment, because the
emergency created by the
breakdown of the machine in
the present case made it
necessary that the deceased
should proceed to the factory
to repair it forthwith. The
learned arbitrator goes
on to say that when the
deceased in the present case
went to the sampan to retrieve
the tools he was doing
what a good employee would
have done under the
circumstances, namely,
avoiding the waste of time that
would have occurred if he had
to proceed to the factory first
before going to the sampan to
retrieve the
tools.
In the case of Kuppusamy
v Golden Hope Rubber
Estate Ltd [1965] 1 MLJ
178 the deceased was
employed by the respondent
company as a weeding
labourer. On the day in
question she went to the daily
"muster" of work-people
which was held prior to
commencing the labours of the
day with a view to the
work-people obtaining
instructions. She and others
received certain instructions
but finding that she had
provided herself with the
wrong tool for her appointed
labours she returned to her
house without the
permission of anyone in a
supervisory capacity. This was
against the rules of the estate.
At her home she
fell down and sustained
injuries from which she died.
It was held that although the
deceased was doing
something which she was
forbidden to do, the act was
done for the purpose and in
connection with her
employer's trade and business
and therefore the accident
must be deemed to have arisen
out of and in the
course of her employment.
These schemes provide the
benefits of:
• invalidity pension,
• invalidity grant,
• survivors’ pension,
THE EMPLOYEES SOCIAL
SECURITY ACT (SOCSO)
1969
• rehabilitation,
• funeral benefit,
• constant attendance allowance
• educational loan
accidents while traveling
(commuting accident), arising out
of and in the course of
employment and occupational
diseases.
SOCSO’s Protection Schemes –
Contributions
First Category
• Employees under 60 years old,
contributions by employers and
employees for Employment
Injury Scheme and
Invalidity Scheme.
• Rate of contribution of this
category comprises 1.75% of
employer’s share and 0.5% of
employees’ monthly
wages based on the contribution
schedule.
• Note: All employees who under
60 years old, contribute under the
First Category except those have
attained
55 years old and no prior
contributions before reach 55 due
to non-eligibility under SOCSO.
Second Category
• Rate of contribution of this
category is 1.25% of employees’
monthly wages, payable by the
employer, under
the contribution schedule.
• Employees who reached 60
years old covered under this
category for Employment Injury
Scheme only.
Note: For new employees at 55
years old must be covered under
the Second Category.
CONTRIBUTION'S RATES
• Principal employer must
monthly contribute for each
employee according to rates
specified under the Act.
• Employee's share of 0.5% of
wages paid for coverage under
Invalidity Pension Scheme while
employer pays
1.75% for Employment Injury
Scheme and Invalidity Pension
Scheme.
• Rate of contribution based on
monthly wage of employee in
accordance to SOCSO
Contribution Schedule.
• Contributions made from first
month the employee is employed.
BENEFITS
Invalidity pension;
Disablement benefit (temporary
and permanent)
An invalidity pension comprises
periodical payments to an insured
person in the case he is certified
invalid by medical
board.
Stated in Section 15(a) of the
Employees Social Security Act
1969.
Section 16 of the Act, an insured
person considered as suffering
from invalidity, if because of a
specific condition of
permanent nature, he is incapable
any gainful activity.
A person deemed to be incapable
of engaging in gainful activity, if
incapable of earning 1/3 of the
customary earnings
of mentally and physically sound
person with similar qualifications
and training.
Under these conditions;
• Must suffering from invalidity
as defined above;
THE EMPLOYEES SOCIAL
SECURITY ACT (SOCSO)
1969
• Below 55 years old; and
• Completed either a full or a
reduced qualifying period.
Amount given;
• The pension amount depending
on whether they have completed
a full or reduced qualifying
period.
S 17 of SOCSO defines them as
follows;
a) Full Qualifying Period
• Employee’s monthly
contribution to SOCSO paid at
least 24 months within a period of
40 consecutive months
before the month where their
invalidity notice is received by
SOCSO
• Their monthly contribution paid
for not less than 2/3 of the
complete months comprised
when contribution
first became payable and
Invalidity Notice is received by
SOCSO (total number of monthly
contributions that
paid within that period must be at
least 24 months).
b) Reduced Qualifying Period
Employee’s monthly
contributions to SOCSO paid
before 1/3 of the number of
completed months (comprised of
the
period when contribution first
become payable and Invalidity
Notice is received by SOCSO).
Total number of monthly
contributions paid during the
period must be at least 24
months.
Invalidity Grant
• S21 of the Act: outright
payment paid to employee who
made at least 12 monthly
contributions.
• If employee is severely
incapacitated and requires
constant personal attendance, the
recipient of Invalidity
Pension is entitled to Constant
Attendance Allowance. The
Medical Board will decide the
eligibility to receive
this allowance and pay the
recipient of the benefit directly.
Maximum of RM500 per month,
the benefit is 40%
of the rate of Invalidity Pension.
• S. Constantine v Social
Security Organisation [1998] 1
MLJ 160
•
Dependents’ benefit
Funeral benefit/ expenses;
Constant-attendance allowance;
Medical treatment;
Rehabilitation benefit
BENEFITS===Disablement
Benefits
Disablement benefits may be
divided into two;
1. Temporary
2. Permanent
Stated under Section 2 of the Act.
Section 2(23): temporary means
condition from an employment
injury which; Requires medical
treatment; and causes
an employee temporarily
incapable of doing work.
Section 2(17): Permanent
includes; Permanent partial
disablement. Disablement of a
permanent nature reduces the
earning capacity of an employee,
in respect of employment that he
was able to undertake.
Section 2(18): Permanent total
disablement which disables of all
work he was capable to
performed.
BENEFITS===Employment
Injury
THE EMPLOYEES SOCIAL
SECURITY ACT (SOCSO)
1969
Section 2(6): ‘employment
injury’ means personal injury
caused by accident or disease
arising out of and in the course
of his employment to which the
Act applies.
BENEFITS===Employment
Injury-continued
Section 24, accident happened to
an insured person deemed to arise
in the course of his employment
if happens while
the employee is travelling; On
route between his residence and
his place of work; On journey
made for any reason
which connected to his
employment; or On journey
between his place of work and
place where he takes his meal
during authorised recess.
BENEFITS===Dependants’
Benefit
Section 26, if an insured person
dies out of an employment injury
sustained under the Act, his
dependents as follows
will be entitled to dependents’
benefit at the rate as specified in
the Fourth Schedule.
BENEFITS===Occupational
Diseases
Section 28: If employee is
employed in any occupation
under the Fifth Schedule, and he
contracts a disease shown in
the Schedule while at work or
within 60 months after quit, he is
deemed to continue employment
injury and entitled
to claim benefit under the Act.
BENEFITS===Funeral Benefit
Section 29(1) of the Employees
Social Security Act 1969: Funeral
benefit of an amount as stated by
Minister by
regulations (currently RM1,500)
is payable to the family of an
insured deceased; As a result of
employment injury;
While he received disablement
benefit under the Act; While he
received invalidity pension; or
After completing a full
or reduced qualifying period,
even before 55 years old.
BENEFITS===Rehabilitation
Benefit
Rehabilitation services, for
example, physiotherapy. Provided
free to all workers who have
permanent impairment.
Other necessary aids are also
provided free including repair and
maintenance.
Penalties
(a) Penalty for giving false
information
Section 93 provides for
imprisonment not exceeding
Section 93 provides for
imprisonment not exceeding
two
years or fined not more than
RM 10, 000 or both, upon
conviction.
(b) Penalty for failure to
contribute
Section 94 provides for
imprisonment not more than
two years or fined not more
than RM 10,000 or both, if
convicted. The amount of
contributions will be recovered
with interest through the order
of the court. See
section 94A (1) and (2).
(c) Compound
Section 95A allows the
Director General to make an
offer to compound the
offences committed under the
Act.
Company
 About us
 Academic Integrity
 Jobs
 Blog
 Dutch Website
Contact & Help
 F.A.Q.
 Contact
Legal
 Terms
 Privacy policy
 Cookie Statement
Social
 Facebook
 Twitter
 Instagram
Get the App


Copyright © 2021 StudeerSnel B.V., Keizersgracht 424, 1016 GC Amsterdam, KVK: 56829787,
BTW: NL852321363B01
6

out of 9
 Download
Help