AECOR INNOVATION SDN BHD v 1. ) MD SHAHIDUL BAPARI 2. ) MD MOHATAB ALI 3. ) SHIFUL ISLAM 4. ) AHAMMAD ALI 5. ) MD YOUSUF ALI 6. ) JEWEL RANA 7. ) JUWEL MIA 8. ) MD MEHEDI HASAN 9. ) MOHAMMAD AKTER HOSSAIN RASEL 10. ) MD EMON KHAN 11. ) MOHAMMAD JAHIDUL 12. ) MD NASIM HOSEN 13. ) MD MASUD RANA

ba-16-64-11-2024 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 30 October 2025 • BA-16-64-11/2024

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 (14)

AECOR INNOVATION Sdn Bhd Appellant Ahammad Ali Respondent Jewel Rana Respondent Juwel Mia Respondent Md Emon Khan Respondent Md Masud Rana Respondent Md Mehedi Hasan Respondent Md Mohatab Ali Respondent Md Nasim Hosen Respondent Md Shahidul Bapari Respondent Md Yousuf Ali Respondent Mohammad Akter Hossain Rasel Respondent Mohammad Jahidul Respondent Shiful Islam Respondent

Case Significance

AECOR INNOVATION SDN BHD v 1. ) MD SHAHIDUL BAPARI 2. ) MD MOHATAB ALI 3. ) S... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated October 30, 2025 (citation: ba-16-64-11-2024). The case was decided by Narkunavathy Sundareson.

What was the outcome of AECOR INNOVATION SDN BHD v 1. ) MD SHAHIDUL BAPARI 2. ) MD MOHATAB ALI 3. ) S...?

AECOR INNOVATION SDN BHD v 1. ) MD SHAHIDUL BAPARI 2. ) MD MOHATAB ALI 3. ) S... is a High Court decision dated October 30, 2025. The case was heard by Narkunavathy Sundareson. See the full judgment for details.