AECOR INNOVATION SDN BHD v 1. ) SHAMSUZZAMAN 2. ) SAJIDUL ISLAM 3. ) MD RASHEL SIKDER 4. ) MD MAHEDI HASAN 5. ) MD MUSTAFIGUR RAHMAN 6. ) MD BIPLOB ALI 7. ) MAZHARUL 8. ) SUJIR CHONDRO DAS 9. ) MD TAZUL ISLAM 10. ) ASLAM 11. ) MD ROBIN UDDIN 12. ) MD ASHIKUR RAHMAN 13. ) MD BILLAL HOSSEN 14. ) MD MILON HOSEN 15. ) MD JONAB ALI 16. ) MOMINUL ISLAM MAFI 17. ) MD OBIDUR RAHMAN 18. ) MAH TAMIM SHEIKH

Case Significance

Affirms that recruited foreign workers must be paid from the date of arrival in Malaysia under their contracts, protecting them from being treated as an unpaid on-call labour reserve pending deployment, and finding no error in the labour authority's award.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam, decided together with related appeals, concerns the employer's challenge to a labour authority's award of wages to a group of foreign workers it had recruited. On 8 November 2024 the Assistant Director of Manpower had allowed the workers' wage claims, and the employer, Aecor Innovation Sdn Bhd, appealed. At the heart of the case was the protection of recruited foreign workers against being left unpaid for the period after they arrive in the country but before an employer chooses to deploy them. The Court held that the contracts were explicit that the workers were to be paid from the date of their arrival in Malaysia, and that this entitlement did not depend on the employer securing placements for them with third parties. It squarely rejected the employer's premise that such workers could be maintained as a pool of available labour and paid only for the days on which they were actually called to work, agreeing with the labour authority that the framework governing the entry of foreign workers presupposes that employment has already been arranged and does not countenance treating workers as an on-call reserve. The subsidiary arguments the employer raised — that work could be required before permits issued, that the workers had declined to work, and that advances justified deductions — were regarded as afterthoughts designed to escape a clear liability. The Court underscored that the recruited workers had travelled to Malaysia in reliance on the employer's promise of paid employment, and that shifting the risk of idle time onto them by paying only for days worked would undermine the very protections the recruitment framework is designed to secure. Finding that the labour authority had not misapprehended the evidence and that no error of law or fact had been shown, the Court dismissed the challenge and left the wage awards to the workers in place.