Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-Pekerja Hotel, Bar dan Restoran Semenanjung Malaysia v CDL Hotels (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (Grand Millennium Kuala Lumpur) (WA-25-350-10/2023)

After considering all the cause papers and the respective 55 written submissions of the parties, I hold that this JR Application has no merit, and it is dismissed with costs of RM20,000.00 payable within 30 days from the date of this order.

Dissatisfied, the applicant filed this appeal, and my reasons are 60 as follows: FACTS IN BRIEF [3] The Applicant and R1 were caught in a deadlock situation concerning a collective bargaining negotiation in July 2013, where 65 they could not come to terms, leading to an impasse constituting a trade dispute: The First IC Award 2017 and the First JR 2019 3.1 The Applicant referred the trade dispute to the Industrial Relations 70 Department (IRD) in April 2015, where, via a Ministerial Reference (31.07.2015), the impugned trade dispute was referred to the Industrial Court (IC) for a resolution:

After a full trial, the IC handed down its IC Award No.1148/2017 (1st IC Award 2017: L3, exh. RA-4, PDF pp.83-163). 75

Dissatisfied, R1 challenged the 1st IC Award 2017 by Judicial Review (JR) in 2018. The High Court on 28.5.2019 agreed with R1 partially by allowing R1’s challenge (L3, exh.RA-5, PDF pp.164-185)

Both parties felt aggrieved by that decision, appealed to the 80 Court of Appeal, which remitted the matter back to the IC to determine the disputed Article 10 of the Collective Agreement. The Second IC Award 2023 and the Second JR 2023 3.2 The IC in 2023, in its decision in the IC Award No: 1706/2023 (2nd 85 IC Award 2023: L3, PDF pp.195-244), adopted R1’s proposal for Article 10 to be incorporated into the First Collective Agreement. The IC find that it was a trade dispute reference (16.08.2018) under section 26(2) of the IRA 1967:

The issue was ventilated before a three-member panel 90 comprising the IC Chairman, a representative each from the applicant and R1.

It was a unanimous decision by the IC Panel that R1’s proposal concerning Article 10 on Salary Structure is to be adopted and included in the parties' Collective Agreement.

It was established that:

It is trite Industrial law that when there have been adjustments in the past years, before the start of the Collective Agreement, there shall be no salary adjustment for the First Collective Agreement seen in Baxter 100 Healthcare S.A. (Malaysia Operations) (Pulau Pinang) v Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Baxter Healthcare S.A. (Malaysia Operations) [1995] 2 ILR 534

The IC in that case find that in deciding on salary adjustments, the IC needed to factor the increments given 105 before the coming into force of the new Collective Agreement.

That decision was affirmed by the High Court in Tri Wall (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v Paper And Paper Products Manufacturing Employees’ Union And Mahkamah 110 Perusahaan Malaysia [R2-25-115-2011].

It was also affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Paper & Paper Products Manufacturing Employees’ Union v Tri-Wall (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd 254 [2015] 2 ILR 254, CA, and 115

By the Federal Court in Federal Court Civil Appeal No: 02(f)-85-11/2014(W). The IC Panel therefore found:

3.3 The applicant’s witness (COW-1) confirms that between 2012 and 120 2014, R1 had provided salary increments for its employees.

It was also found that R1 should consider potential salary adjustments based on its Return on Investment (ROI) to ensure its ability to remain a going concern and mitigate an extensive increase in operating costs.

It was decided that it was fair and equitable to adopt R1’s performance-related assessment proposal regarding annual salary increments for employees and rejected the applicant’s proposal for an immediate adjustment.

The IC made a finding that there was no compelling evidence 130 of the alleged unfairness as alleged by the applicant in adopting R1’s proposal herein.

The IC also made a finding that the list of hotels (Holiday Inn Glenmarie, New York Hotel Johor Bahru, Primula Beach Hotel and Crystal Crown Hotel Petaling Jaya) named by the 135 applicant was not comparable to R1, which is a five-star rated hotel in the Golden Triangle.

3.4 Aggrieved with the above decision in the 2nd IC Award 2023 (L3, PDF pp.195-244), the applicant sought to challenge it in the present JR proceedings 2023. In a nutshell, the 2nd IC Award is briefed as 140 follows:

Currently, the only article which remains in dispute between the parties in respect of the proposed 1st. Collective Agreement is Article 10, which relates to the Salary Structure that was remitted back to the IC by the Court of Appeal to be 145 canvassed and ventilated before being admitted into the Collective Agreement. In addressing the issue of salary structure (immediate adjustment and annual increment), it is incumbent on the IC to consider the following:

Wages and salaries prevailing in comparable establishments in the 150 same region.

Any rise in the cost of living since the existing wages or salaries were last revised.

The financial capacity of the company to pay the higher wages/increase.

The legitimate desire of the employer to make a reasonable profit. (refer: Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-Pekerja Perusahaan Alat-Alat Pengangkutan Dan Sekutu v Oriental Summit Industries Sdn Bhd [2019] 3 ILR 175; & Arab Malaysian Development Bhd and 160 Perak Textile & Garment Manufacturing Employees’ Union [1987] 1 ILR 118)

In addressing salary revision or increments across the board to assist the employees in dealing with the cost of living and 165 inflation:

Is generally guided by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Within the hotel industry, the courts have accepted that salary revision and the salary structure post minimum wage should be implemented in a graduated fashion with 170 adjustments in a way that maintains the job hierarchy and reflects seniority by maintaining a salary gap.

This is to preserve industrial harmony.

It is an accepted principle that annual increment represents the added value of the employee in terms of 175 skill and experience to the employer. The Courts have generally accepted the position that the quantum of the added value should not exceed 5% of the salary per annum.

The industrial court held that an annual increment should 180 not be based on the Company’s profits. (refer: Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-Pekerja Hotel, Bar & Restoran Semenanjung Malaysia v Primula Beach Hotel Sdn Bhd [2020] 1 LNS 609), HC., New York Hotel Johor Bahru v Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-Pekerja Hotel Bar Dan 185 Restoran Semenanjung Malaysia [2018] 1 LNS 1389), HC).

The contents of ARTICLE 10 & APPENDIX A are as 190 follows: ARTICLE 10 SALARY STRUCTURE Clause (a) With effect from 1st February 2015, every employee whose basic salary is less than RM900.00 shall be 195 entitled to a salary revision as follows:

An employee who has served less than 5 years shall be paid a basic salary of RM900.00

(ii) An employee who has served 5 years and more, but less than 10 years, shall be paid a basic 200 salary of RM900.00 + 2%.

(iii) An employee who has served 10 years and more shall be paid a basic salary of RM900.00 + 4%.

(iv) An employee, irrespective of years of service, 205 drawing a basic salary of RM900.00 and more, shall be paid 7% on the existing basic salary. Clause (b) With effect from 1st February 2015, every employee shall follow the salary structure as per Appendix A. Clause (c) In the event of the creation of a new position which is 210 within the Scope of this Agreement, the Hotel, together with the Union, shall negotiate on the salary and service charge points pertaining to such position. Clause (d) Annual Increment An employee shall be entitled to his annual increment 215 on the anniversary date of employment as follows:

An employee drawing less than RM1200 basic salary per month shall be entitled to RM60.00 annually.

(ii) An employee drawing RM1200 basic salary per 220 month or more but less than RM1400 basic salary per month shall be entitled to RM70.00 annually.

(iii) An employee drawing RM1400 basic salary per month or more but less than RM1600 basic 225 salary per month shall be entitled to RM80.00 annually.

(iv) An employee drawing RM1600 basic salary per month or more but less than RM1800 basic salary per month, shall be entitled to RM90.00 230 annually.

An employee drawing RM1800 basic salary per month or more shall be entitled to RM100.00 annually. 235 APPENDIX A SALARY STRUCTURE OF EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE AGREEMENT Department Position Minimum Salary Maximum Salary Stewarding Steward 900 +20 steps Steward Supervisor 1160 +20 steps Kitchen Kitchen Helper 900 +20 steps Commis 3 900 +20 Steps Commis 2 950 +20 Steps Commis 1 1035 +20 Steps Demi Chef 1035 +20 Steps Chef De Partie 1100 +20 Steps Senior Chef De Partie 1310 +20 Steps Assistant Chef Baker 1400 +20 Steps F & B Waiter 900 +20 Steps Waitress 900 +20 Steps Bartender 940 +20 Steps F & B cashier 910 +20 Steps Hostess 950 +20 Steps F & B captain 950 +20 Steps Bar Captain 955 +20 Steps Engineering Air Con Technician 1160 +20 Steps Electrician 1160 +20 Steps Painter 1160 +20 Steps Carpenter 1160 +20 Steps Varnisher 1160 +20 Steps Plumber 1160 +20 Steps AV Technician 1160 +20 Steps Chargeman 1410 +20 Steps Housekeeping Room Attendant 900 +20 Steps Public Area Attendant 900 +20 Steps Linen Attendant 900 +20 Steps Public Area Supervisor 1160 +20 Steps Floor Supervisor 1160 +20 Steps Housekeeping Coordinator 1135 +20 Steps Laundry Valet Runner 900 +20 Steps Washer 900 +20 Steps Presser 900 +20 Steps Checker Marker 910 +20 Steps Dry Cleaner 940 +20 Steps Desk Clerk 940 +20 Steps Front Office Doorman 900 +20 Steps Bellman 900 +20 Steps Front Office Cashier 910 +20 Steps Guest Service Assistant 1035 +20 Steps Concierge 1000 +20 Steps Bell Captain 950 +20 Steps Reservation Sales Agent 1075 +20 Steps Airport Representative 990 +20 Steps Reservation Supervisor 1160 +20 Steps Recreation Club Attendant 900 +20 Steps Club Ambassador 1035 +20 Steps Club Ambassador Supervisor 1160 +20 Steps Accounts Despatch Clerk 1010 +20 Steps Accounts Assistant 1410 +20 Steps 240

Grounds of contention:

It was pointed out by the IC in the 2nd IC Award that while R1 took the position that it had its proposals for the 1st. CA, provide for fair, reasonable, and equitable terms and 245 conditions of employment, taking into account the current terms and conditions of employment.

The Applicant, on the other hand, is seeking an immediate adjustment, at the following rates: Years of Service Proposed Adjustment Less than 5 years 900 5 years and more but less than 10 years 900+2% 10 years or more 900+4% Irrespective of years of service, earning 900 or more 900+4% 250

In considering the weightage of the parties' respective arguments, the IC, amongst other things, determined:

The IC Panel unanimously found in favour of R1 in that Article 10 accords the employees the necessary salary revision, under the relevant Minimum Wages Order 255 applicable and ordered for adoption in the 1st CA between the parties.

It is established in industrial adjudication that there should not be salary adjustments for First Collective Agreements (as is the case here) if there had been adjustments in the 260 past years, before the commencement of the First Collective Agreement: (refer: Baxter Healthcare s.a. (Malaysia Operations) (Pulau Pinang) v. Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Baxter Healthcare s.a. (Malaysia Operations) [1995] 2 ILR 534; Kesatuan Eksekutif 265 RHB Bank Berhad vs RHB Bank Berhad [Industrial Court

The IC Panel was satisfied that the increment granted by the Hotel to the unionised employees was, in fact, 270 consistent with the principle of the Harun Formula, devised by Justice Harun, whereby salary adjustments under the CA should:

Not be less than 60% of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase over the 3 years preceding the CA, 275 and

(ii) Not more than 2/3 of the CPI increase over a corresponding period. (refer: Malaysian Commercial Banks Association v. National Union of Bank Employees [industrial court award 117 of 82)

The IC Panel agrees that, based on the data available before the IC, the Company had granted salary increments slightly over the Harun Formula. Be that as it may, the Hotel has nevertheless proposed to incorporate another component in respect of a salary adjustment of 285 2/3 of the Annual CPI at the end of the financial year, subject to the return on investment of 4% for the same period (Genting Berhad v. Genting Berhad Employees' Union [1982] 2 ILR 228) The IC Panel agrees that it is vital for the Company to tie 290 any potential salary adjustment to its ROI, ensuring the Hotel’s survivability and avoiding an extensive increase in the Hotel’s costs.

The IC Panel observed that the Union’s proposal for the Annual Increment is a contractual annual increment of a 295 fixed rate dependent on the respective employees’ salary range, without consideration of their performance. In contrast, the Hotel proposes an Annual Increment based on achieving performance for the calendar year. The IC Panel disagreed with the Applicant's argument, 300 presuming that for each year of service, an employee will be more skilled:

The IC cited Association of Bank Officers Peninsular Malaysia v Malayan Commercial Banks Association [1981] 1 ILR 136, where the IC found that the basis for 305 the provision of annual increments is premised on the added value of the employees, in terms of skill and experience, to the employer.

(ii) The IC Panel also cited Kesatuan Pegawai-Pegawai Standard Chartered Bank Malaysia Berhad, Semenanjung 310 Malaysia v Standard Chartered Bank Malaysia Berhad [2017] 2 ILR 176, which observed that the rates cannot be increased arbitrarily and must be commensurate with the value of the job.

The IC Panel found that the issues raised by the 315 Applicant/Union were inconsistent with comparable hotels, namely Holiday Inn Glenmarie, New York Hotel JB, Primula Beach Hotel, Crystal Crown Hotel PJ, and Datai Hotel Langkawi. The hotels named by the Applicant are four-star hotels, which are not comparable to R1, a 320 five-star hotel in the Klang Valley.

The IC Panel unanimously concluded that, with due regard to the public interest, the financial implications and the effect of the Award on the economy of the country and of the industry concerned and also its probable effect in related or similar 325 industries, as required by Section 30(4) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1967, the IC Panel orders that R1’s proposals for the 1st CA, which provide for fair, reasonable and equitable terms and conditions of employment having regard to the current terms and conditions of employment, they are hereby 330 adopted and incorporated in the 1st CA together with other Articles that had been agreed upon by both parties. THE PARTIES ARGUMENTS [4] I have duly observed and considered the parties' arguments vis-à- 335 vis the findings of the learned Chairman in the 2nd IC Award as follows (briefly):

(A) The Applicant’s arguments. 340 4.1 The applicant argued that:

That the High Court should not interfere in the findings of the IC Award 2023 save where it can be established that the impugned award was based on grounds of illegality or irrationality, or because of procedural impropriety. The Courts 345 can now scrutinise the impugned award on the substance and merits.

That in arriving at its decision, the IC must consider salaries in comparable establishments, the rise in cost of living since it 350 was last revised, and the financial capacity of the employer (R1).

It was argued that in the hotel industry, the Courts have accepted that salary revision and structure post minimum 355 wage should be implemented gradually to maintain job hierarchy and seniority, as proposed by the applicant, which the IC rejected:

The applicant proposal contains a 20-step salary structure for increments, which means that an employee will only 360 be entitled to a maximum of 20 increments in a particular position since R1 has been in operation for 33 years.

R1, being a 5-star Hotel located in the Golden Triangle in Kuala Lumpur, should be able to at least match, if not exceed, what is being given by Holiday Inn Glenmarie, 365 New York Hotel Johor Bahru, Primula Beach Hotel and Crystal Crown Hotel Petaling Jaya (which, in their words, are of a lesser standard).

The applicant argued that the IC erroneously adopted the R1’s 370 argument that there should be no salary adjustment for First Collective Agreements:

The IC erroneously relied on the decisions of Baxter and Triwall when these cases do not stand for the principle that there should be no salary revision for the first 375 collective agreements if there were previous revisions before the commencement of the collective agreement.

Therefore, the impugned IC Award 2023 is unreasonable as it did not reflect seniority or job hierarchy.

It incorporated a flat minimum wage to employees that 380 would lead to workplace disharmony. Baxter and Triwall were legal determinations below the minimum wage before the implementation of the minimum wage standard in Malaysia. These decisions are therefore irrelevant. 385 In the circumstances, the applicant pray that an order for certiorari is warranted to quash the 2nd IC Award.

(B) The First Respondent’s (R1) Arguments. [5] In a nutshell, R1 argued as follows:

It is trite law that a JR proceeding is not an appeal process and cannot be used for such a purpose. It is trite law that it operates as a review in the manner in which the decision was arrived at. The findings of fact are not susceptible to challenge by way of JR: William Jacks (M) Sdn Bhd v. Balasingham [1997] 3 395 CLJ 235.

It is argued that in light of the foregoing, the IC had not committed any error of law in arriving at its decision, and there is no evidence to support any proposition that it is supposedly 400 so.

R1 argued that the present JR must be dismissed because:

The IC had not committed any error of law in the IC Award 2023.

It correctly construed and applied the law as it is to the 405 facts of the case.

The award was reasonable and correct in the circumstances of the facts before the IC.

It was a unanimous decision of the panel of three members that comprised a representative of each of the 410 parties, based on the irrefutable evidence before them. Therefore, R1 prays that the JR application be dismissed with costs. THE LAW 415 [6] Judicial Review Generally 6.1 Lord Diplock set out the legal principle regarding judicial review in the case of Council of Civil Service Unions & Ors v. Minister of Civil Service [1985] AC 374, which the Federal Court has applied in the case of R Rama Chandran v. The Industrial Court of 420 Malaysia & Anor [1997] 1 MLJ 145, FC, briefly as follows:

Lord Diplock defined the three grounds of review: (a) illegality,

irrationality, and (c) procedural impropriety: 425

‘Illegality’:

The decision maker must understand directly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must 430 give effect to it.

(ii) Whether he has or not is, par excellence, a justiciable question to be decided.

‘Irrationality:

‘Wednesbury unreasonableness’: Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp [1948] 1 KB 223.

(ii) It applies to a decision so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible 440 person who had used his mind to decide the question could have arrived at it.

(iii) Whether a decision falls within this category is a question that judges by their training and experience should be well equipped to answer.

(iv) ‘Irrationality’ by now can stand on its own feet as an accepted ground on which a decision may be attacked by Judicial Review.

‘Procedural impropriety’:

Failing to observe basic rules of natural justice.

(ii) Failure by an administrative tribunal to observe procedural rules that are expressly laid down in the legislative instrument by which its jurisdiction is conferred, even where such failure does not involve 455 any denial of natural justice.

Lord Diplock also mentioned ‘proportionality’ as a possible fourth ground of review, which called for development.

6.2 The Federal Court in Ranjit Kaur a/p S Gopal Singh v. Hotel Excelsior (M) Sdn Bhd [2010] 6 MLJ 1, FC observed as follows:

The foregoing Rama Chandran decision by the FC has given the reviewing court a license to review decisions without 465 restraint for substance, even when the decision is based on a finding of fact.

The Federal Court in the case of Kumpulan Perangsang Selangor Bhd v Zaid Noh [1997] 1 MLJ 789; [1997] 2 CLJ 11, FC after affirming the Rama Chandran decision held that 470 there may be cases in which for reason of public policy, national interest, public safety or national security the principle in Rama Chandran may be wholly inappropriate.

The Federal Court, in Petroliam National Bhd v. Nik Ramli Nik Hassan [2004] 2 MLJ 288; [2003] 4 CLJ 625, FC also 475 observed that the reviewing court may scrutinise a decision on its merits but only in the most appropriate of cases and not every case is amenable to the Rama Chandran approach.

A reviewing judge ought not to disturb the findings of the Industrial Court unless they were grounded on illegality or plain 480 irrationality, even where the reviewing judge might not have come to the same conclusion.

6.3 In a nutshell, judicial review is not an appeal of a decision, but a review of how the decision was made. The Supreme Court in 485 Harpers Trading (M) Sdn Bhd V National Union of Commercial Workers [1991] 1 MLJ 417, SC held as follows:

A judicial review is not an appeal of a decision, but a review of how the decision was made. The High Court is not entitled to an application for judicial review to consider whether the 490 decision was fair and reasonable on the merits of the facts.

The Industrial Court, in this case, had heard evidence from both sides and decided to exculpate Tan Seng Khow. It is not the High Court's function to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to hear a dispute de novo and decide on its merits. This is not 495 a case where the Industrial Court acted on no evidence or came to a conclusion that it could not reasonably have reached.

There is no basis for concluding that the decision of the Industrial Court, in this case, was in excess of jurisdiction or 500 unreasonable and, therefore, a nullity. The court also rejected the contention that the decision of the Industrial Court was so manifestly unreasonable that nobody could have reached it because there was no basis for the court to reach such a conclusion. The Industrial Court had acted within the four 505 corners of the dispute, and in arriving at its decision, it did not reach an absurd conclusion. [7] Collective Agreement 7.1 Section 2 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (IRA) provides briefly:

Defines this engagement as “collective bargaining”, which denotes the “negotiating” process that the trade union of workmen concerned enters into with the employer or the trade union of the employer, with a view to the conclusion of a collective agreement.

A collective agreement is understood to mean an agreement in writing that is entered into by an employer or a trade union of employers on the one hand and a trade union of workmen on the other hand.

The contents of this collective agreement relate to the terms 520 and conditions of employment and work of the workmen concerned, or it can set out the relations between the two parties involved.

The general principle is that the terms of each new Collective Agreement shall not be less favourable than the existing 525 terms, as it was held in National Union of Hotel, Bar & Restaurant Workers v Kuala Lumpur Hilton [1981] 1 ILR

219.

7.2 The IRA provides that:

Once the Industrial Court makes a decision and hands down an award concerning the trade dispute and this includes an award made concerning a collective agreement, then such award will be binding upon all members of a trade union, including the trade union of workmen, employer or trade union 535 of employers who were a party to the trade dispute concerned. This award will also be binding on their successors, assignees and transferees: Section 32 (1)(d).

A collective agreement which has been taken cognisance of 540 by the Industrial Court shall be considered as an award and it will be binding upon all the parties to the collective agreement. This includes the employer (or trade union of employers as the case may be), all the union members of the workmen or class of workmen whom the collective agreement relates to and 545 extends to include their respective successors, assignees or transferees. The collective agreement is also binding upon the workmen who are currently employed by the employer (or trade union of employers) as well as those subsequently employed: Section 17(1)(a) and (b).

From the date that is specified in the collective agreement, the terms and conditions contained in the collective agreement shall be taken and considered to be an implied term of the contract between the workmen and the employers (including 555 where relevant, the trade union of employers) and the terms and condition shall bind both reflected therein unless such terms a subsequently varied either by mutual agreement or through an award handed down by the Industrial Court: Section 17(2). 560 FINDINGS OF THIS COURT [8] In coming to my conclusion, I have examined and duly considered all-cause papers, the evidence at the trial, the parties' submissions, and the findings of facts and evidence by the learned Chairman 565 contained in the 2nd IC Award.

8.1 In examining and considering the evidence by the parties:

I am guided by the Federal Court in Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v M-Concept Sdn Bhd [2010] 1 CLJ 269, FC, which 570 observed, amongst other things, that in coming to this determination, a Court interpreting the facts is entitled to look at the facts forming the background of the transaction which includes all material reasonably available to the parties. 575

8.2 In this context:

Looking at the facts and background of the present case, I am also guided by the Court of Appeal in Guan Teik Sdn Bhd v 580 Hj Mohd Noor bin Hj Yakob & Ors [2000] 4 MLJ 433, CA in observing that the Court must not only weigh such evidence on a balance of probabilities but must also consider the surrounding circumstances and evaluate contemporary documents that may tend to establish the truth or otherwise of 585 a given fact.

In my overall observation:

I find that there is no error of law or fact to warrant judicial intervention in the 2nd IC Award by the IC Panel in its 590 determination on the facts and the law.

It is trite law that a reviewing judge ought not to disturb the findings of the Industrial Court unless they were grounded on illegality or plain irrationality, even where the reviewing judge might not have come to the same conclusion. I find 595 no such elements or circumstances in the present case.

8.3 By and large, it is my considered judgment that:

I agree with the arguments put forth by R1 that the applicant’s case is merely speculative without compelling evidence to 600 support its arguments.

I find factual basis in the submissions of R1 that, in the Applicant’s proposal, guaranteeing an employee a fixed annual increment (contractual) with no reference to their 605 performance is counter-intuitive in assessing their skills. It provides no impetus for them to work for the increment, as they will be entitled to it regardless.

Similarly, I am not convinced by the Applicant’s arguments on 610 the financial capacity of R1 vis-à-vis the Applicant's proposal put forward before the Court.

I find no issue to disturb the findings of fact by the IC to formulate an equitable and reasonable Collective Agreement 615 between the Applicant and R1 in the circumstances. CONCLUSION [9] By and large, on a balance of probabilities, I find no merit in the Applicant’s L1, and I dismissed it with costs of RM20,000.00 to be 620 paid within 30 days from the date of this order, subject to the allocator's fee. Dated 05.08.2025. HAYATUL AKMAL ABDUL AZIZ 625 JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR 630 Counsel for the Applicant: Shireen Selvaratnam, together With Gokul Radhakrishnan Messrs. Sreenevasan 635 Counsel for the First Respondent: Vijayan Venugopal, together with Wong Kian Jun Messrs. Shearn Delamore & CO