INQUIRY UNDER SECTION 14 OF THE EMPLOYMENT ACT

2.38 p.m.

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: Mr Speaker, Sir, on 19th March 1982 at Question Time, the Member for Anson asked me a supplementary question, following my reply to Question No. 2 on the Order Paper. His question was whether I was aware of a case in the Court of Appeal where the Court held that there need be no enquiry held before a worker is dismissed and whether I would consider taking steps to amend the legislation to put that right. I presume he was then referring to the case of Lim Tow Peng and Another vs the Singapore Bus Services Limited, as reported in 1976 in Vol. 1, Malayan Law Journals at page 254. I have had the oppor- tunity since last Friday, Sir, to obtain and read the Judgment of the Court of Appeal. The Court held, and I quote the following passage at page 257, Column 2, from the Judgment of the Court:

'In our judgment the provisions of section 14 are not mandatory. An employer is not obliged to comply with section 14 but if he disregards section 14 and dismisses an employee without an enquiry, as in this case, the dismissal can be enquired into and reinstatement with full pay ordered by the Minister whose decision cannot be challenged in any court. The effect of section 14 is that a dismissal without notice before due enquiry is wrongful and not that it is ineffective or null and void.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am only a layman when it comes to legal matters. But the Judgment seems to be clear enough. It is not necessary for an employer to hold an inquiry under section 14 of the Employment Act, but where an employee is dismissed without notice before due inquiry, the dismissal is wrongful and the employee has the right to present a complaint to the Minister who has the power to direct the employer to reinstate the employee. Any employer who fails to comply with the Minister's order of reinstatement will be guilty of an offence under the Act.

Perhaps the Member for Anson can explain why he misled me and the House when he asked me to consider making an amendment to this section of the Act, when it is clear from the Judgment that no such amendment is necessary.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, the point of my question to the Hon. Minister was this: that section 14 says "an employer may dismiss an employee after holding an inquiry." I thought the whole intention of the legislature was that there should be an inquiry before the employer dismissed an employee. But the Court of Appeal said in their Judgment that section 14 did not make it obligatory for the employer to hold an inquiry before he dismissed the employee. And my question to the Hon. Minister was this: would he consider amending that section to make it obligatory for an employer to hold an inquiry before he dismisses the employee?

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought I have quoted the Judgment in clear plain English. There is no need for an amendment to section 14 of the Employment Act. There is provision in the Act where an employee who is dismissed without due inquiry can seek redress from the Minister. And if the Minister after investigation found that it is true, he could order a reinstatement.

I am not sure which part of the Employment Act that the Member for Anson thought that it was inadequate in this respect. Perhaps he could tell the House the nature of the amendment that he has in mind. If he has difficulty with section 14, I have a copy of the Act here to help him.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am aware of the provision. The Hon. Minister will find it in section 14 (1). Here it is:

'An employer may after due inquiry dismiss without notice an employee . . .'

It is that that I was talking about and I thought that the intention of the legislature was to require employers to hold an inquiry before they dismiss an employee without due notice. Now that the Court of Appeal has said that it is not obligatory for an employer to hold an inquiry, I want to know whether the Hon. Minister would consider amending this section to make it obligatory for an employer to hold an inquiry before he dismisses an employee without due notice.

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: Sir, the answer is no, it is not necessary. The Member for Anson, in fact, has misled his client by advising him to refer the matter to the court which has no power to order a reinstatement. If he had advised his client correctly by referring the matter to the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Labour after due inquiry and investigation could make an order of reinstatement free of charge without having to refer it to the court.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, with all due respect, I think the Hon. Minister has missed my point. I am talking about the inquiry before dismissal. I am saying that it should be made mandatory for an inquiry before dismissal, before the employer dismisses the employee. I think we must try and keep this clear. I am talking of an inquiry conducted by the employer before dismissal.

Mr Speaker: I thought the Minister said no.

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: I have already said no, it is not necessary.

Mr Jeyaretnam: All right.