AECOR INNOVATION SDN BHD v 1. ) MD RAKIBUL HASSAN 2. ) MD SOHEL RANA 3. ) MD NAZMUL HOSSAN 4. ) ZABED MIA 5. ) ROBIN HOSSAIN 6. ) RIPON HOSSEN 7. ) MD TAIFUL ISLAM 8. ) MD SAYKAT HOSSAIN 9. ) MD HAFIZUL ISLAM 10. ) MD LIMON 11. ) SHAHZAHAN MIA 12. ) SHARIF MIA 13. ) MD SHORIF MIA 14. ) MD SAJIB HOSSEN

ba-16-62-11-2024 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 30 October 2025 • BA-16-62-11/2024

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 Md Hafizul Islam Respondent Md Limon Respondent Md Nazmul Hossan Respondent Md Rakibul Hassan Respondent Md Sajib Hossen Respondent Md Saykat Hossain Respondent Md Shorif Mia Respondent Md Sohel Rana Respondent Md Taiful Islam Respondent Ripon Hossen Respondent Robin Hossain Respondent Shahzahan Mia Respondent Sharif Mia Respondent Zabed Mia Respondent

Case Significance

AECOR INNOVATION SDN BHD v 1. ) MD RAKIBUL HASSAN 2. ) MD SOHEL RANA 3. ) MD ... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated October 30, 2025 (citation: ba-16-62-11-2024). The case was decided by Narkunavathy Sundareson.

What was the outcome of AECOR INNOVATION SDN BHD v 1. ) MD RAKIBUL HASSAN 2. ) MD SOHEL RANA 3. ) MD ...?

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