Infineon Technologies (Kulim) Sdn Bhd v 1. ) Ketua Pengarah, Jabatan Perhubungan Perusahaan, Malaysia 2. ) Kesatuan Staf Eksekutif Elektronik Wilayah Utara Semenanjung Malaysia

pa-25-23-07-2025 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 16 April 2026 • PA-25-23-07/2025

Catchwords

1 The present Judicial Review is not concerned solely with whether the Second Respondent Union may ultimately obtain recognition. Rather, it raises a more fundamental question: whether the statutory safeguards embedded in the Industrial Relations Act 1967, particularly the mandatory interval between successive claims, may be circumvented by administrative characterisation. The Applicant thus brings this challenge as a matter of legal principle and to ensure strict compliance with the statutory scheme. 2 The claim for recognition by the Second Respondent Union was made pursuant to section 9(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 and regulation 3(1) of the Industrial Relations Regulations 1980, by way of the prescribed Form A. 3 The First Respondent initially rejected the Union's first claim for recognition but subsequently allowed a second claim. 4 Aggrieved, the Applicant commenced the present Judicial Review proceedings seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the second claim for recognition is void ab initio on the ground that the Director General of Industrial Relations ("DGIR") ought to have required the Union to observe the statutory interval of six months before submitting a fresh claim, in accordance with section 9(5) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967. 5. It is to be noted that, by the nature of the reliefs sought, the Applicant does not contend that the Second Respondent Union is precluded from pursuing recognition altogether, nor that the DGIR is barred from considering such a claim. The Applicant's position is confined to the proposition that any fresh claim must comply with the statutory requirement of a six-month interval. In that sense, the present application is directed at the lawfulness of the process rather than the ultimate merits of recognition. 6 Leave having been granted, together with an order for stay, this judgment now concerns the merits of the application.

Judges (1)

Choong Yeow Choy Delivered

Parties (3)

Infineon Technologies Sdn Bhd Applicant Ketua Pengarah, Jabatan Perhubungan Perusahaan, Malaysia Respondent Kesatuan Staf Eksekutif Elektronik Wilayah Utara Semenanjung Malaysia Respondent

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (pa-25-23-07-2025)