BA-16-62-08/2025
High Court of Malaysia29 Apr 2026
The written judgment as the court issued it, with the coram, case number, and source links. Every paragraph has its own anchor.
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Later cases and laws citing this decision
Not yet cited by a later decision.
Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
“5. Section 91 Employee Social Security Act 1969 (Act 4) reads – “(1) Save as expressly provided in this section, no appeal shall lie from an order of the appellate boards set up by or under this Act.”
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Content
1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA RAYUAN SIVIL NO: BA-16-62-08/2025 ANTARA JASUDASS A/L SANASI …PERAYU DAN PERTUBUHAN KESELAMATAN SOSIAL ...RESPONDEN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (Lampiran 1)
1
Enclosure 1 is the Appellant’s appeal against the Respondent’s Appellate Board decision dated 14.3.2025
2
After careful consideration of the cause papers and the submission, this Court dismissed the appeal. The following are the reasons for that decision. Background facts
3
The Appellant filed a claim for work related injury to the Respondent. He alleged that he worked as a lorry attendant with Syarikat Kumar Maju Resources. On 22.12.2022 whilst working, he was involved in a road accident and suffered injuries for which he continues to undergo treatment.
4
His application was rejected by the Respondent as was his appeal to the Appellant Board on 14.3.2025. He then filed an appeal to the High Court on 7.8.2025 against the Appellate Board’s decision. Right of appeal
5
Section 91 Employee Social Security Act 1969 (Act 4) reads – “(1) Save as expressly provided in this section, no appeal shall lie from an order of the appellate boards set up by or under this Act.
2
An appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order of an appellate board set up by or under this Act if it involves a substantial question of law.
3
The period of limitation for an appeal under this section shall be sixty days from the date the order is made.”
6
This right of appeal is limited substantial question of law. (Patrick Ho Chang v. Pertubuhan Keselamatan Sosial [2020] 1 CLJ 284 di 297)
7
In their grounds of judgment, the Appellate Board referred to the definition of employee and insured person under section 2 Act 4.
8
The Appellate Board highlighted –
i
the Appellant’s evidence that he was not a permanent employee or an employee with a contract of service with his employer and that there was no salary slip and payment was made directly either to him or his bank account; and
II
(ii) Kumaraselan a/l Gunasekaran’s evidence that the Appellant was not his employee but rather a freelancer with no fixed working days and time. and that he was paid after the delivery was made.
9
The Appellate Board concluded that the Appellant was not an employee and therefore entitled for employment injury benefits.
10
Having perused the records of appeal, The Court agrees with their finding. This Court is satisfied that there was no error of fact or law in the Appellate Board’s decision.
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.