Sri Maju Sarata Ekspres Sdn Bhd v Segar a/l Munusamy & Ors

Appellant(s): Sri Maju Sarata Ekspres Sdn Bhd

Respondent(s): Segar A/L Munusamy & 35 Orang Yang Lain

• YA Datuk Ravinthran a/l Paramaguru
• YA Dato' Collin Lawrence Sequerah
• YA Dato' Faizah Binti Jamaludin

• The respondents, a group of employees, claimed balance wages from the appellant for the period of July 2020 to February 2021 at the Labour Office under section 69 of the Employment Act 1955.
• The Labour Office allowed the claims, a decision subsequently upheld by the High Court, leading to the appellant's appeal to the Court of Appeal.
• The appellant contended that many respondents were employed by distinct legal entities within the same corporate group, that the Labour Office lacked jurisdiction to pierce the corporate veil, and that wage deductions were consensual and justified given the MCO period.

• Whether the Labour Office and subsequently the High Court correctly pierced the corporate veil to treat the appellant and related companies as a single employer, and whether the Labour Office had the jurisdiction to do so.
• What constitutes "wages" under section 2 of the Employment Act 1955 in the context of MCO restrictions, and whether the SOCSO Wage Subsidy Programme (PSU) affected the entitlement to full basic wages.
• The legal effect of consent letters signed by the respondents agreeing to wage deductions, particularly concerning voluntariness and compliance with the Employment Act 1955.

• The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the Labour Office and High Court were correct in piercing the corporate veil, given evidence of unified operations, shared resources, and a common payroll, and that the Labour Office had jurisdiction under section 69 of the Employment Act 1955 to determine the true employer.
• The Court held that the respondents were entitled to their full basic wages during the MCO period, finding that their basic salary was a fixed component and that the SOCSO Circular prohibited wage reductions for PSU recipients.
• The Court found the consent letters for wage deductions to be invalid due to concerns over voluntariness, coercion, and non-compliance with permissible deductions under section 24 and the "less favourable" condition under section 7A of the Employment Act 1955.