Alliance For Financial Inclusion v Nazira Binti Nasir

Case Significance

Confirms that the summary strike-out power under section 29(fa) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 is confined to straightforward cases with compelling evidence, and is unsuitable for factually contested wrongful-dismissal claims that require oral evidence.

This High Court decision in Kuala Lumpur concerns an appeal against the dismissal of an employer's challenge to an Industrial Court interim award, and the proper use of the summary strike-out power under section 29(fa) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The appellant, an organisation, had applied in the Industrial Court to strike out a claim of wrongful dismissal filed against it by the respondent, a former employee, under section 29(fa) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The Industrial Court dismissed that interlocutory strike-out application by an interim award, and the appellant's challenge to that award in the High Court having been dismissed, it appealed further. The Court examined the scope of section 29(fa), which confers a power to dispose of a claim summarily. Drawing on the Court of Appeal's guidance in Institut Integriti Malaysia v Roziah Harun & Anor, it emphasised that section 29(fa) should be used only in straightforward cases where the evidence is sufficiently compelling and the issue can be dealt with summarily, and that it is unsuitable where the facts are convoluted or where viva voce evidence is required to resolve the dispute. Measuring the wrongful-dismissal claim against that standard, and considering the arguments advanced, the Court found no merit in the appeal. It held that this was not an appropriate case for a summary strike-out and that the claim should proceed to be determined on its merits in the Industrial Court. The Court accordingly dismissed the appeal with costs of RM5,000 subject to allocatur, payable within thirty days. The decision illustrates the confined role of the summary strike-out jurisdiction in industrial disputes, which is reserved for clear cases and not for factually contested claims of wrongful dismissal. The Court's approach reinforces that striking out a wrongful-dismissal claim at the threshold deprives the claimant of a hearing on the merits, so the power is to be exercised sparingly, and that where the competing accounts of a dismissal cannot be safely resolved without hearing the witnesses, the claim must be allowed to go to a full determination.