The Malaysian Highway Authority (MHA) submitted an application last month to strike out a suit filed by 47 former staff seeking their gratuities and pensions.

This was disclosed by MHA lawyer Muhammad Akram Abdul Aziz when met after case management today at the Kuala Lumpur High Court. He said the MHA application was filed on June 28.

The lawyer for the 47 plaintiffs, Muhamad Syahrul Nizam Mohd Rabi, said following the application to MHA to strike out their suit, Judicial Commissioner Faizah Jamaluddin fixed Aug 6 for further case management.

"The court wants parties to consider mediation," he said when met after case management.

Akram said MHA was seeking to strike out the suit as the plaintiffs failed to show reasonable cause of action.

"There is no basis and the application is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process as the declaration sought by the plaintiff involves public law like the Statutory Body and Local Authority Pensions Act and all government policy related to the privatisation of the project," he said.

Hence, he said it should be filed via judicial review.

It was reported that the 47 former staff filed their suit against MHA after they were absorbed into Projek Lebuhraya Usahasama Bhd when it was set up.

They are claiming fraud with respect to their employment benefits following their transfer to Plus which took over the administration of the North-South Expressway.

The plaintiffs, led by Zul Ali, claim that sometime in 1988 they were instructed to resign or leave MHA and join Plus without allegedly knowing the terms of their employment with Plus.

They further claimed there was undue influence with regard to having to sign their contracts with Plus without knowing the terms of the contract of their employment.

Undue influence is where the person or employer has taken advantage of a position of power over another person.

Declarations sought

The 47 plaintiffs further claim that as a result of joining Plus, they lost their retirement benefits or contributions, entitlement to allowances, retirement benefit schemes or contributions to the Employees Provident Fund, pensions and other benefits.

They claimed that LLM and Plus violated their statutory duty and also violated the basic fundamental rights based on the workers on the Scheme B (Terms and Conditions for MHA Non-Executive staff).

It is understood that they claim the terms listed under Scheme B were hidden from their knowledge during the years they were employed.

As a result, they said, it has been a violation of their rights as they were deprived of receiving employment benefits that included retirement pensions.

The workers claimed they are entitled to receive pensions and other benefits, and that the defendants are under the statutory duty to pay or offer the benefits to them.

They are, therefore, seeking several declarations and among others, to receive pensions without any reductions in their EPF contributions.

They also want the court to assess individually their entitlement to general damages, special damages and exemplary damages.