Infineon Technologies (Kulim) Sdn Bhd v 1. ) Ketua Pengarah, Jabatan Perhubungan Perusahaan, Malaysia (PA-25-23-07/2025)

KETUA PENGARAH,

KESATUAN STAF EKSEKUTIF ELEKTRONIK WILAYAH UTARA SEMENANJUNG MALAYSIA ... RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN

The present Judicial Review is not concerned solely with whether the Second Respondent Union may ultimately obtain recognition. Rather, it raises a more fundamental question: whether the statutory safeguards embedded in the Industrial Relations Act 1967, particularly the mandatory interval between successive claims, may be circumvented by administrative characterisation. The Applicant thus brings this challenge as a matter of legal principle and to ensure strict compliance with the statutory scheme.

The claim for recognition by the Second Respondent Union was made pursuant to section 9(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 and regulation 3(1) of the Industrial Relations Regulations 1980, by way of the prescribed Form A.

The First Respondent initially rejected the Union's first claim for recognition but subsequently allowed a second claim.

Aggrieved, the Applicant commenced the present Judicial Review proceedings seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the second claim for recognition is void ab initio on the ground that the Director General of Industrial Relations ("DGIR") ought to have required the Union to observe the statutory interval of six months before submitting a fresh claim, in accordance with section 9(5) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967.

It is to be noted that, by the nature of the reliefs sought, the Applicant does not contend that the Second Respondent Union is precluded from pursuing recognition altogether, nor that the DGIR is barred from considering such a claim. The Applicant's position is confined to the proposition that any fresh claim must comply with the statutory requirement of a six-month interval. In that sense, the present application is directed at the lawfulness of the process rather than the ultimate merits of recognition.

Leave having been granted, together with an order for stay, this judgment now concerns the merits of the application. The Grounds to Resist this Application

The DGIR resists the application on three principal grounds.

First, it was contended that the application was filed out of time. This objection had been raised and dismissed at the leave stage. For the same reasons, this Court finds the objection on delay to be without merit.

Second, it was contended that the review of the first Form A was merely an administrative exercise undertaken pursuant to regulation 5(2) of the Industrial Relations Regulations 2009, and did not constitute a determination of the scope of membership under section 9(4A)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967.

Third, it was contended that the said process was procedural in nature and not an adversarial inquiry, with the consequence that the principles of natural justice were inapplicable.

This Court is not persuaded by the First Respondent's contentions.

The central issue is one of legality: whether the DGIR's characterisation of the first claim as falling within regulation 5(2) was sustainable in law, or whether, in substance, the matter fell within the statutory regime under section 9 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967, thereby attracting its prescribed consequences.

It is evident from the DGIR's own correspondence that a finding had been made that the Union was claiming recognition in respect of employees falling outside the scope of its constitution. Such a finding brings the matter squarely within the DGIR's investigative powers under section 9(4A)(a) and (5) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967.

In those circumstances, the statutory consequences prescribed by law are engaged. In particular, where recognition is refused on such grounds, the Union is required to observe a period of six months before submitting a fresh claim.

This Court agrees with the Applicant that the DGIR erroneously characterised the matter as one involving false or inaccurate information under regulation 5(2) of the Industrial Relations Regulations 2009. By doing so, the DGIR effectively circumvented the statutory framework governing recognition claims and permitted the Union to submit a fresh claim without observing the mandatory interval.

Further, there is no evidence to suggest that the Second Respondent Union had, at any material time, asserted or admitted that the first Form A contained false or inaccurate information so as to justify the invocation of regulation 5(2).

In the premises, this Court finds that the impugned decision cannot be sustained.

Accordingly, an order of certiorari and the consequential reliefs sought are granted in terms of the Statement filed pursuant to Order 53 rule 3(2) of the Rules of Court 2012 (Enclosure 3).

As to costs, this Court has given careful consideration to the nature of the parties and the issues raised in the present Judicial Review.

The Applicant is a multinational corporation, whereas the First Respondent is a public authority discharging statutory functions, and the Second Respondent is a trade union acting in furtherance of its members' collective interests. The issues ventilated in this application concern the proper interpretation and application of the statutory framework governing recognition claims under the Industrial Relations Act 1967, and are not devoid of public importance.

Although the Applicant has succeeded in establishing that the impugned decision cannot be sustained in law, the challenge was, in substance, directed at ensuring compliance with the statutory process rather than denying the Union's entitlement to recognition altogether.

In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that it would not be appropriate to make any order as to costs.

Accordingly, each party shall bear its own costs. Dated: 13 May, 2026 (CHOONG YEOW CHOY) JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA, PENANG PENANG HIGH COURT 2 Counsel: For the Applicant : Amardeep Singh a/l Amar Singh Wong Lien Taa (Messrs Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill) For the Respondents Nordiyanasari Binti Omar Amirul Hisyam bin Azedi Noor (Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang