G-Force Security Services Sdn. Bhd. v Gunahsegeran A/L V G Bala Subramaniam (MA-16-7-10/2025)

This is an appeal against the decision of the Labour Officer, sitting for and on behalf of the Director General of Labour, Melaka, delivered on 9 October 2025 in Ketua Pengarah Tenaga Kerja Summons Case No. KBR/10401/2025/0135. The appeal is brought under section 77 of the Employment Act 1955 against an order made in the exercise of the Director General's power of inquiry under section 69 of that Act.

The Respondent was employed by the Appellant as a security guard. His complaint to the Labour Department concerned, among other matters, the alleged underpayment of his monthly basic wages below the statutory minimum wage. By the order under appeal, the Labour Officer found that underpayment proved and directed the Appellant to pay the Respondent arrears of RM9,900.00.

The controversy on this appeal is a short one. It is whether the award of statutory minimum wage arrears discloses any error of fact, law or principle of a kind that would justify appellate interference. That controversy turns less on any contest of primary fact than on the legal character of the minimum wage and the consequences that follow from it.

Two further matters require notice at the outset. First, the Appellant's position at the inquiry was that its liability, if any, was confined to a later period by reason of a deferred implementation said to apply to its place of operation, and that certain payments made to the Respondent ought to be set off against any sum awarded. Secondly, the Respondent's claim before the Labour Officer extended beyond minimum wage to two heads of overtime, both of which were dismissed below. The status of those overtime claims on this appeal must therefore be clarified before the substantive questions are reached.

The issues for determination are set out below. I deal first with the scope of the appeal, then with the framework governing the minimum wage, and finally with the grounds advanced against the order.

The Respondent, Gunahsegeran a/IVG Balasubramaniam, entered the Appellant's employment as a security guard on 1 February 2021. His engagement was recorded in a Letter of Appointment dated 2 February 2021 and subsequently supplemented by a Letter of Confirmation and Terms of Service dated 20 September 2022 (exhibits P35 to P41). He was initially assigned to the guard post at Taman Paya Rumput Perdana. The evidence further shows that, during the course of his employment, he also performed security duties at Taman Pokok Mangga and at certain Ministry of Education school projects in Jasin.

The Letter of Appointment fixed the Respondent's basic salary at RM1,200.00 per month, payable through Maybank, and stipulated a working day of twelve hours comprising nine hours of ordinary working hours and three hours of overtime.

It is not in dispute that the Respondent was in fact paid a basic salary of RM1,200.00 per month throughout the material period. That amount is reflected in the Respondent's monthly payslips, which form part of Exhibits P1- P63, and is corroborated by the Appellant's own payroll records and related salary documents contained in Exhibits D1 to D36F.

The Respondent's complaint, lodged on 7 March 2025 under section 69 of the Employment Act 1955, comprised three heads of claim. The first was for arrears of minimum wage of RM300.00 per month for the 33-month period from May 2022 to January 2025, amounting to RM9,900.00, on the basis that he continued to receive a basic salary of RM1,200.00 notwithstanding his contention that he was entitled to the statutory minimum wage of RM1,500.00. The second and third heads sought payment for an additional hour of overtime each working day, namely RM3,094.00 for the period February 2021 to April 2022 and RM9,273.00 for the period May 2022 to January 2025. Those overtime claims were founded on the allegation that, although rostered for twelve-hour shifts, the Respondent remained continuously on duty because no relief guard was provided and he was therefore unable to enjoy a genuine one-hour meal break. The aggregate sum claimed was RM22,267.00.

The procedural history before the Labour Office may be shortly stated. The matter was first mentioned on 9 April 2025, when the Appellant did not attend despite service by registered post. On 30 April 2025 both parties attended; the Appellant accepted that the minimum wage claim was a matter for discussion but disputed the overtime claim. On 14 May 2025 the Appellant acknowledged a possible minimum wage liability but contended that it arose only from January 2023, asserting that for the earlier months its relevant projects lay in a rural area to which a deferred implementation applied; it also proposed to set off against any award sums said to represent excess contributions to the Employees Provident Fund, annual leave and a transport allowance. The Respondent rejected the proposed deductions. A hearing fixed for 9 June 2025 was adjourned on the Appellant's request after its Human Resource Director was reported to have contracted COVID-19, and the inquiry proceeded on 9 July 2025.

At the hearing the Respondent gave evidence (Notes of Evidence, pages 14 to 31). He testified that he worked the day shift from 7.00 a.m. to 7.00 p.m.; that at Taman Pokok Mangga he guarded construction materials stored in two vacant houses on an unfenced and open site; that he remained continuously responsible for the security of the site because, if he left his post, theft might occur and he would be held accountable; and that, although he took his meals within the guard post, he was not afforded a genuine uninterrupted meal break. In cross-examination he accepted that toilets were available and could be used as required, that he ate within the post, that he had made no written protest concerning overtime, and that he had lodged no complaint with the Labour Department during his employment.

The Appellant called its Director of Human Resource, Noorazima binti Mohd Noor (Notes of Evidence, pages 32 to 43). Her evidence was that any liability for minimum wage, if established, would arise only from January 2023, the earlier period being said to fall within the deferred implementation applicable to rural areas. She further testified that the Respondent had received various payments, including excess Employees Provident Fund contributions, annual leave, public holiday pay and a monthly transport allowance of RM300.00, which the company contended should be deducted from any award. She also stated that employees over the age of 60 assigned to certain Ministry of Education school projects were remunerated on the basis of two hours of overtime, and denied that the company had imposed any restriction on the Respondent taking meals or using the toilet.

By his decision dated 9 October 2025, the Labour Officer found that the Respondent was an employee within the meaning of the Employment Act 1955; that the Appellant employed more than five employees and could not therefore rely on the deferred implementation under the Minimum Wages Order; that the Respondent was entitled to minimum wage arrears of RM300.00 per month for the period May 2022 to January 2025, amounting to RM9,900.00; and that the Appellant's proposed deductions were without merit. The claim for an additional hour of overtime was dismissed, the Labour Officer finding that toilet facilities were available, that the Respondent took his meals at the guard post, and that the evidence did not establish that he had been denied a meal break so as to entitle him to additional overtime. The Appellant was accordingly ordered to pay the Respondent RM9,900.00 within 14 days.

Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed its Notice of Appeal on 22 October 2025 against the whole of the Labour Officer's decision. C. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The appeal raises the following issues:

the scope of the appeal, and in particular whether the dismissa of the overtime claims is open to review;

whether the Respondent's continued acceptance of, and failure to protest, a basic salary below the statutory minimum wage defeats or estops his claim to the arrears, and whether the related contentions founded on his age and on the burden of proof bear upon that claim; and

whether the Labour Officer erred in rejecting the deferment defence and the Appellant's proposed deductions. D. STATUTORY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK [16] The jurisdiction of the Labour Officer and the route of appeal are not in dispute and may be stated briefly. Section 69 of the Employment Act 1955 confers on the Director General of Labour the power to inquire into and decide complaints concerning wages and other cash payments due to an employee, whether under the contract of service, the Act, or the National Wages Consultative Council Act 2011, and to make an order for payment. An appeal from such an order lies to this Court under section 77 of the Employment Act 1955. [17] The minimum wage is a statutory entitlement. The National Wages Consultative Council Act 2011 empowers the making of minimum wages orders prescribing the minimum rate of basic wages payable by employers. Pursuant to that power, the Minimum Wages Order 2022 [P.U. (A) 165/2022] prescribed a minimum monthly wage of RM1,500.00, subject to the commencement and transitional provisions contained in the Order and any applicable deferments or exemptions. Whether the Appellant was entitled to rely upon any such deferment forms one of the issues arising in this appeal. [18] The commencement of the RM1,500.00 minimum wage was not uniform for all employers. Under the statutory scheme introduced by the Minimum Wages Order 2022 [P.U. (A) 165/2022], as amended, the RM1,500.00 rate applied from 1 May 2022 to employers employing five or more employees, and to employers carrying on professional activities classified under the Malaysia Standard Classification of Occupations (MASCO) irrespective of the number of employees. For certain employers employing fewer than five employees and not carrying on such professional activities, implementation of the RM1,500.00 rate was deferred until 1 January 2023, with transitional minimum wage rates applying between 1 May 2022 and 31 December 2022. The proper construction and application of those transitional provisions to the Appellant form one of the principal issues in this appeal [19] Two features of the minimum wage are central to this appeal and are well settled. First, the minimum wage is referable to basic wages alone; allowances, overtime and benefits in kind do not count towards it. Secondly, the minimum wage is a floor fixed by law in the public interest. An employer is bound to pay not less than the prescribed rate, and that obligation is not displaced by an employee's agreement to, or acceptance of, a lesser sum. To these matters I return in the analysis. E. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION The Scope of the Appeal [20] Although the Notice of Appeal is expressed to be against the whole of the Labour Officer's decision, an appeal lies only at the instance of a party aggrieved. The Appellant succeeded below on the overtime claims, which were dismissed. It is not aggrieved by that part of the decision and cannot appeal against a finding made in its favour. The Respondent, who alone was aggrieved by the dismissal of the overtime claims, has not cross-appealed. [21] It follows that the dismissal of the two overtime claims is not open to review on this appeal and stands undisturbed. The contractual stipulation of a twelve-hour day comprising nine hours of basic work and three hours of overtime, and the question whether the Respondent's meal period ought to have been treated as compensable overtime, therefore do not arise for decision. I say so expressly because those matters featured prominently in the evidence; but a court does not reach issues that no party has properly placed before it. The appeal is confined to the award of minimum wage arrears and to the deductions said to bear upon it. Whether Acceptance of the Lower Wage Defeats the Statutory Claim [22] The principal ground advanced against the award is that the Respondent received a basic salary of RM1,200.00 consistently and without protest throughout his employment, took the benefit of that arrangement, and cannot now be heard to claim the difference. Reliance was placed on Azhar bin Harun v Dato' Muthukumar a/l Ayarpadde & Ors [2021] MLJU 2389 (HC), where it was observed that a party who has taken the benefit of a course of conduct pursued under an employment contract may not afterwards adopt a position inconsistent with his earlier one. [23] The principle of approbation and reprobation is a settled one, and Azhar bin Harun is a faithful application of it. But the principle has no purchase on the present facts. That case was concerned with a common law claim for damages for breach of contract, founded upon representations said to have induced the contract, in which the plaintiff was held to have elected to affirm the contract and could not afterwards resile from that election. The doctrine there operated as between inconsistent contractual or common law rights, the choice of which lay with the party invoking them. It says nothing of an entitlement conferred by statute. [24] The minimum wage is not a contractual entitlement that an employee may take or leave. It is a floor fixed by law. The obligation to pay it is imposed on the employer by the Minimum Wages Order 2022 made under the National Wages Consultative Council Act 2011, and it exists independently of, and prevails over, the parties' agreement. An employee's acceptance of a wage below the statutory minimum, however prolonged and however uncomplaining, cannot convert an unlawful underpayment into a lawful one. To hold otherwise would permit the parties to contract out of a statutory protection enacted in the public interest, which the law does not allow. [25] For the same reason the related contentions of estoppel, waiver, acquiescence and laches cannot avail the Appellant. It is well established that an estoppel cannot be raised to defeat the operation of a statute, and that a statutory protection enacted for the benefit of a class of persons cannot be waived by a member of that class so as to relieve the party bound. The Respondent's silence during his employment, and his failure to lodge any written protest or earlier complaint, may be explained by the very inequality of position that the minimum wage legislation exists to redress; but whatever the explanation, that silence does not extinguish the statutory entitlement. The lapse of time is likewise no answer, the doctrine of laches having no application to a statutory entitlement and the claim having in any event been brought while the employment subsisted. [26] The contention that the Respondent was engaged as an act of indulgence notwithstanding that he had passed the age of 60, and was for that reason posted to a less demanding station, is immaterial to the minimum wage. The Minimum Wages Order 2022 admits of no exemption by reference to the age of the employee; it applies to all employees save for the narrow excluded categories, of which the Respondent is not one. The age of the Respondent and the lightness of his duties have no bearing on the rate of basic wages the law required the Appellant to pay. In so far as the reference to a two-hour basis of overtime for employees over 60 was intended to bear on remuneration, it concerns overtime, which is not before the Court. The Deferment Defence and the Proposed Deductions [27] Nor is there substance in the Appellant's contention that the Respondent failed to discharge the burden of proving the shortfall. The amount actually paid, namely RM1,200.00 per month, is established by the Respondent's payslips, which form part of Exhibits P1-P63, and is corroborated by the Appellant's own payroll records contained in Exhibits D1-D36F. Once it is concluded that the applicable statutory minimum wage for the relevant period was RM1,500.00 per month, the resulting shortfall of RM300.00 per month over the 33-month period from May 2022 to January 2025 produces the sum of RM9,900.00 by straightforward arithmetic. While the Appellant disputed the applicability of the statutory rate and contended that certain deductions should be made, it did not dispute either the amount of the Respondent's basic salary or the arithmetic of the computation. The Respondent therefore discharged the burden of proof on the documentary evidence. [28] The Appellant's contention that liability arose only from January 2023 because its projects were situated in a rural area cannot be accepted. The Labour Officer found, and I agree, that the Appellant employed more than five employees and therefore did not fall within the category of employers eligible for the deferred implementation of the Minimum Wages Order 2022. The statutory deferment was not available merely because work was performed in a rural locality. Rather, eligibility for deferred implementation depended upon the statutory criteria prescribed by the Order, including the size of the employer's workforce. The locality distinction relied upon by the Appellant formed part of the transitional wage structure applicable to eligible small employers; it did not constitute an independent exemption available by reference to the place of employment alone. [29] The Labour Officer found as a fact that the Appellant employed more than five employees. That finding was open on the evidence and has not been shown to be plainly wrong. The Appellant's case before the Labour Officer was directed principally to the alleged rural location of its projects rather than to establishing that it fell within the category of employers employing fewer than five employees. The Labour Officer was therefore entitled to conclude that the Appellant could not rely upon the deferred implementation provisions of the Minimum Wages Order 2022. An appellate court will not interfere with such a finding of fact unless it is shown to be unsupported by the evidence or plainly erroneous, and no such error has been demonstrated. It follows that the Appellant was obliged to pay the prescribed minimum wage from 1 May 2022, and no part of the Respondent's claim period attracted the deferment. [30] The Appellant's contention that the award should be reduced by reason of alleged overpayments is likewise unsustainable. The items relied upon comprised excess Employees Provident Fund contributions, annual leave pay, public holiday pay and a monthly transport allowance. The transport allowance cannot be taken into account in determining compliance with the statutory minimum wage because the minimum wage relates to the employee's basic wages and not to allowances. Likewise, Employees Provident Fund contributions, annual leave pay and public holiday pay arise from separate statutory or contractual obligations and do not satisfy, diminish or replace the employer's independent obligation to pay the prescribed minimum basic wage. The Labour Officer was therefore correct in declining to reduce the Respondent's entitlement on the basis of those payments. F. CONCLUSION [31] For the foregoing reasons, I find no error of fact, law or principle in the Labour Officer's award of minimum wage arrears. The Respondent's acceptance of a basic wage below the statutory minimum did not extinguish or diminish his statutory entitlement to recover the shortfall. The Appellant's reliance on the doctrine of approbation and reprobation, or upon related concepts of estoppel, waiver or acquiescence, is misplaced in the context of a mandatory statutory minimum wage. The Labour Officer correctly concluded that the Appellant could not rely upon the deferred implementation provisions of the Minimum Wages Order 2022, having found that it employed more than five employees. The proposed deductions were likewise rightly rejected. The Respondent's entitlement to RM9,900.00 was established by the documentary evidence and the computation itself was not in dispute once the applicable statutory rate was determined. [32] The appeal is accordingly without merit and must be dismissed. G. ORDER OF THE COURT [33] For the foregoing reasons, I make the following orders:

the appeal is dismissed;

the order of the Labour Officer dated 9 October 2025 in Ketua Pengarah Tenaga Kerja Summons Case No. KBR/10401/2025/0135 is affirmed; and

the Appellant shall pay to the Respondent costs fixed at RM2,000.00. The general rule that costs follow the event entitles the Respondent, as the successful party, to his costs. His appearance in person bears upon the quantum recoverable, and not upon his entitlement, a litigant in person having incurred no professional fees; and having regard to that circumstance, to the modest sum in issue, and to the character of the appeal as one arising under social legislation enacted for the protection of employees' wages, I consider a fixed sum of RM2,000.00 to be just. Dated 9 July 2026 (MELAKA) Lawyer For Appellant : Encik Zulhelmi bin Wakiman Tetuan Anandan Krishnan, Sahrihan & Partners Peguambela dan Peguamcara No. 34A, Tingkat 1, Jalan Othman, Muar, 84000 Johor. Keywords G-Force Security Services Sdn Bhd v. Gunahsegeran A/LVG Bala Subramaniam [K.1] bth 9.7.2026 Employment Law Appeal Labour Officer Inquiry under s 69 Employment Act 1955 Appeal under s 77 Employment Act 1955 Minimum wages Statutory minimum wage Minimum Wages Order 2022 National Wages Consultative Council Act 2011 Basic wages Whether minimum wage constituted mandatory statutory minimum incapable of contractual exclusion Whether employee's acceptance of wages below statutory minimum defeated subsequent claim for arrears Whether employee estopped by acquiescence, waiver, laches or approbation and reprobation from claiming statutory minimum wage Whether statutory rights capable of being waived by agreement or conduct Whether employer entitled to rely on deferred implementation of Minimum Wages Order 2022 Whether deferment depended on rural location or number of employees employed Burden of proof Documentary evidence Payslips and payroll records Calculation of statutory wage arrears Whether transport allowance formed part of basic wages Whether EPF contributions, annual leave pay and public holiday pay could be set off against statutory minimum wage arrears Scope of appeal Successful party not entitled to appeal against findings in its favour Overtime claims not subject of cross-appeal Whether appellate court should interfere with findings of fact of Labour Officer Social legislation Protective employment legislation. Keywords G-Force Security Services Sdn Bhd v. Gunahsegeran A/LVG Bala Subramaniam [K.1] bth 9.7.2026 Employment Law Appeal Labour Officer Inquiry under s 69 Employment Act 1955 Appeal under s 77 Employment Act 1955 Minimum wages Statutory minimum wage Minimum Wages Order 2022 National Wages Consultative Council Act 2011 Basic wages Whether minimum wage constituted mandatory statutory minimum incapable of contractual exclusion Whether employee's acceptance of wages below statutory minimum defeated subsequent claim for arrears Whether employee estopped by acquiescence, waiver, laches or approbation and reprobation from claiming statutory minimum wage Whether statutory rights capable of being waived by agreement or conduct Whether employer entitled to rely on deferred implementation of Minimum Wages Order 2022 Whether deferment depended on rural location or number of employees employed Burden of proof Documentary evidence Payslips and payroll records Calculation of statutory wage arrears Whether transport allowance formed part of basic wages Whether EPF contributions, annual leave pay and public holiday pay could be set off against statutory minimum wage arrears Scope of appeal Successful party not entitled to appeal against findings in its favour Overtime claims not subject of cross-appeal Whether appellate court should interfere with findings of fact of Labour Officer Social legislation Protective employment legislation.