Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

©New Straits Times (Used by permission)

KUALA LUMPUR, Tues.: Lawyers who apply for postponements on short notice are a hindrance to the speedy disposal of disputes in the Industrial Court.

UPM Chairman Rajendran Nayagam said they invariably placed the court in a difficult position in not following set procedures. "They cause precious judicial time to be wasted," he said.

The Industrial Court had a backlog of cases as far back as 1994, he said, and the Government had increased the number of court chairmen but counsel still ask for adjournment at the 11th hour.

He said the bulk of cases waiting to be cleared involved dismissals from employment.

"The Industrial Court has an important task to perform, bearing in mind that the issue of dismissal has a constitutional dimension," he said, adding that undue delay in disposing of a case often resulted in the remedy of reinstatement not being suitable in view of changed circumstances.

"Hence, the delay may cause the worker’s security of tenure to be compromised."

Rajendran said it was improper for counsel to be absent and assume that an adjournment would be granted.

He said the Legal Profession (Practice & Etiquette) Rules 1978 stated a lawyer should not accept a case if he was unable to appear in court, and he should be ready for the trial.

"Failure to comply with the Rules will subject the counsel to disciplinary proceedings."

He said this in awarding RM36,000 in compensation to Wan Masnizam Wan Mahmood, a probationer who joined Coshare Sdn Bhd as its finance manager but who lost his job because the company was dissatisfied with his performance.

Wan Masnizam’s case was referred to the court on Oct 22 last year and after eight mentions the case was fixed for hearing on Oct 26 this year, on which date neither the company nor its solicitors were present despite notification by both Wan Masnizam’s counsel and the court.

In finding Wan Masnizam’s dismissal to be without just cause and excuse, Rajendran said "the claimant states he was not given an opportunity to rectify whatever weaknesses he may have had" and the employer had not put evidence forward to support the grounds for dismissal.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed