Zuharina Bte Zinil Abeden v Kamc (Kl) Sendirian Berhad (dalam Penggulungan) (WA-28PW-742-12/2025)

These Grounds concern a Notice of Appeal (Encl 6) dated 19.2.2025 to the Court of Appeal against my decision on 27.1.2026.

My said decision was to dismiss the Notice of Motion (Encl 1) for leave to proceed and/or to continue an action against the Respondent (“the Company”) in the Industrial Court, not limited to execution proceedings.

The Company is a management Company providing taxation, management and liquidation services. The Applicant commenced employment with the Company on 1.6.1995 as a General Clerk and was employed for almost 26 years. The Claimant was terminated from her employment on 31.5.2021.

On 6.7.2021, the Applicant filed a representation under s. 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (“the IRA”) at the Industrial Relations Department of the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur.

On 4.03.2022, the Applicant’s representation was referred to the Industrial Court under Case No.: 22/4-686/22 ("Industrial Court Action") for unfair dismissal. All relevant documents and correspondence for the full trial were filed, and the Court had fixed the trial of the Industrial Court Action on 10.4.2023 and 11.4.2023.

Initially, the Company was represented by an individual named Ch’ng Ying Zhao (“Ch’ng”), who introduced herself as the Company's representative. However, the Court found that Ch’ng was neither an employee nor an officer or director of the Company. The Chairman of the Industrial Court subsequently allowed an adjournment to enable the Company to appoint legal counsel for the second day of trial, which was fixed on 11.4.2023.

On 11.4.2023, Lim Yang Ern and Tan Yuan Ling of Darren Lim & Lee, appeared at the Industrial Court to represent the Company. On the request of Counsel, the Chairman of the Industrial Court allowed an adjournment of the trial which was then fixed on 21.6.2023 and 7.7.2023, respectively.

On 21.6.2023, the Company’s Counsel, informed the Industrial Court that they had no locus to represent the Company, as the Company was wound up by an Order dated 20.6.2023 (“the Winding-Up Order”) vide KL High Court Winding-Up Petition No.: WA-28NCC-215-03/2023 (“Suit 215”).

On 16.8.2023, the Applicant filed a Notice of Motion to terminate and/or to stay the Winding-Up Order. This application was dismissed on 4.9.2024.

After the Applicant obtained leave to proceed with the trial in the Industrial Court, the trial commenced on 29.5.2025 in the absence of the Company and the Official Receiver.

On 10.6.2025, the Industrial Court had drawn up an Award vide No.: 899 of 2025 (“the Award”) in favour of the Applicant as follows: “…VII. Award [36] The Court awards and directs that the Company pay to the Claimant a total sum of RM 137,326.00, which derived from the following calculations:

(i) Backwages - RM2,885 x 24 months RM 69,240.00

However, after 30 days, the Company failed to pay the total award to the Claimant.

Under s. 29 of the IRA, execution proceedings may be taken against the Company. Hence this application was filed in this Court for leave to proceed against the Company for non-compliance with the Industrial Court Award.

The Company has been wound up on 20.6.2023. From the Petition in Suit 215 (Encl 1), the Company had ceased operations and the directors decided that the Company be wound up.

The Company was wound up in June 2023. After the lapse of almost 2 1/2 years, it may well be that it is insolvent.

In this regard, the Liquidator, the OR, at the hearing on 27.1.2026, took the position that the claim should be determined within the Proof of Debt process. If there were assets left, then the Liquidator would have to deal with the Applicant’s claim at the appropriate time. 6 17. To grant leave to proceed with execution proceedings could lead to a preference of the Applicant’s claim out of any remaining assets, over the other claims of the other creditors (if any), which was impermissible. And if the intention was to proceed against the directors, there is no need for leave.

As such and with much regret, I dismissed Encl 1 with no order as to costs. Dated the 06th day of April 2026 ..........................tt............................ YA TUAN SAHERAN SUHENDRAN JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER OF THE HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL 11) (INSOLVENCY 2) OF KUALA LUMPUR IN THE TERRITORY, MALAYSIA Counsel for the Applicant: Solicitors: Ganesh Perumal Messrs. Ganesh & Co. (Kuala Lumpur) Legislation References: • Industrial Relations Act 1967 (“the IRA”) Decision Date: 27th January 2026 Official Receiver (OR): Engku Norsuhaila binti Engku Zain Jabatan Insolvensi Malaysia Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur (Kuala Lumpur)