AECOR INNOVATION SDN BHD v 1. ) MD MIRZA GALIB RAHMAN 2. ) ASHIKUR RAHMAN 3. ) LITON MIA 4. ) MD EBRAHIM 5. ) RASEL AHAMMAD 6. ) NAEEM BHUIAN 7. ) SABBIR AHMED 8. ) MD. MOBARAK HOSEN 9. ) MD AYET ALI 10. ) MOZNU MIA 11. ) PUNNA MONDOL 12. ) MUBAROK 13. ) MD JAFIRUL ISLAM 14. ) MURAD HOSSAIN

ba-16-60-11-2024 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 30 October 2025 • BA-16-60-11/2024

Catchwords

On 8.11.2024, the Assistant Director of Manpower allowed all the Respondents’ claim for wages. Issue was whether the Respondents were entitled to their salary upon their arrival in the country or only as and when they were employed by third parties. Appellant argued that they were entitled to deduct the Respondents' salary for advances and poor performance.

Practice Areas

On 8.11.2024, the Assistant Director of Manpower allowed all the Respondents’ claim for wages. Issue was whether the Respondents were entitled to their salary upon their arrival in the country or only as and when they were employed by third parties. Appellant argued that they were entitled to deduct the Respondents' salary for advances and poor performance.

Judges (1)

Narkunavathy Sundareson Delivered

Parties (15)

AECOR INNOVATION Sdn Bhd Appellant Ashikur Rahman Respondent Liton Mia Respondent Md Ayet Ali Respondent Md Ebrahim Respondent Md Jafirul Islam Respondent Md Mirza Galib Rahman Respondent Md. Mobarak Hosen Respondent Moznu Mia Respondent Mubarok Respondent Murad Hossain Respondent Naeem Bhuian Respondent Punna Mondol Respondent Rasel Ahammad Respondent Sabbir Ahmed Respondent

Case Significance

AECOR INNOVATION SDN BHD v 1. ) MD MIRZA GALIB RAHMAN 2. ) ASHIKUR RAHMAN 3. ... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated October 30, 2025 (citation: ba-16-60-11-2024). The case was decided by Narkunavathy Sundareson.

What was the outcome of AECOR INNOVATION SDN BHD v 1. ) MD MIRZA GALIB RAHMAN 2. ) ASHIKUR RAHMAN 3. ...?

AECOR INNOVATION SDN BHD v 1. ) MD MIRZA GALIB RAHMAN 2. ) ASHIKUR RAHMAN 3. ... is a High Court decision dated October 30, 2025. The case was heard by Narkunavathy Sundareson. See the full judgment for details.