Malaysia Airline System let go of 4,682 staff under its revamp
KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysian Airline System Employees' Union Peninsular Malaysia (Maseu) was allowed to initiate a judicial review proceeding against the Administrator of Malaysian Airline System Bhd (MAS) and four others.
Maseu is contending that the Administrator is not above the law and can be sued in court.
High Court judge Justice Nik Hasmat Nik Mohamad, who granted leave to Maseu on April 7 for the judicial review, ordered the applicant to supply all documents including on leave order to the defendants, said Maseu lawyer V.K. Raj.
Speaking to reporters here after the parties met the judge in chambers, lead counsel Datuk Nitin Nadkarni, who acted for all defendants except the government, confirmed the granting of leave by the court and said the judge set June 9 for case management.
Maseu lead counsel Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahman had said that the Malaysian Airline System Bhd (Administration) Act 2015 provides for the appointment of the Administrator which also gives immunity to him under Section 33 (1) of the Act against any legal actions.
Under the section, it was stated that no action, suit, prosecution or proceeding shall be brought, instituted or maintained in any court of law or tribunal or any authority against the Administrator for any loss or damage in respect of any act done by him.
"In our country, no one is above the law. Even, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the Sultan are not above the law, and can be sued and tried in a Special Court.
"So, we are challenging that part of law (on immunity) by saying it is illegal," Abdul Aziz was quoted by media.
In the application for leave, Maseu had named Datuk Mohammad Faiz Azmi (acting as MAS Administrator), MAS, Maskargo Sdn Bhd, Malaysia Airlines Bhd and the Government as respondents.
The applicant sought leave for a judicial review to strike out the decision of Mohammad Faiz dated Aug 6 last year to deny it consent for an Industrial case.
Among others, the applicant wants leave for a declaration that various provisions under the same Act was invalid and unconstitutional saying it deprived the rights of workers.
In a statement, the union said the Administrator had failed to take into account relevant facts or had considered the law accordingly.
Win a prize this Mother's Day by subscribing to our annual plan now! T&C applies.
