Court rules Perkeso Act blocks civil suit over workplace death

The Melaka High Court held that Section 31 of the Employees' Social Security Act operates as a complete bar to common law claims brought by an insured employee or the employee's dependents against the employer for an employment injury. (Facebook pic)PETALING JAYA: The High Court in Melaka has dismissed a civil suit brought by the parents of a 22-year-old factory worker who died in an industrial accident, ruling that the Employees' Social Security Act 1969 bars them from suing his employer.Judicial commissioner K Raja Segaran, in his judgment, held that Section 31 of the Act operates as a complete bar to common law claims brought by an insured employee or the employee's dependents against the employer for an employment injury.He dismissed the action brought by Shahid Said and Siti Norbaya Mohamed against Xinyi Energy Smart Sdn Bhd over the death of their son, Umar Shahid, in a factory accident on Feb 9, 2022.The couple had sought general, special, aggravated and exemplary damages under the Civil Law Act 1956, alleging that the company failed to provide a safe work system.However, the company argued that Umar was an insured employee under the Social Security Organisation's scheme and that the claim was therefore barred by Section 31 of the Act.Raja Segaran said Parliament had deliberately created a statutory bargain under the Perkeso scheme, where employers and employees contribute to a social security fund that guarantees benefits for employment injuries without requiring proof of negligence.In return, he said, the Act removes the right to pursue a civil claim against the employer for the same injury."The uncertain prospect of recovering damages in a negligence action is exchanged for the assurance of a no-fault statutory benefit," he said.Raja Segaran added that Perkeso benefits are not a gratuity or "a consolation prize" but arise from contributions made by employers and employees under the statutory insurance scheme.He said the material facts were undisputed, namely that Umar was an insured person, contributions had been made on his behalf and his death resulted from an employment injury.He said these admissions did not amount to an admission that the company had been negligent.Raja Segaran also rejected the parents' argument that the repeal of Section 42 of the Act in 1997 had weakened the statutory prohibition, saying the operative wording of Section 31…