"The worker, Mr Azmi Muda, suffered serious head injuries in a workplace accident on April 16, 2018."
(he suffered multiple skull vault and facial fractures when he was hit by a bent metal piece that flew out of a power-press machine that he was using to flatten it.)
The court found that the $1,300 paid to Mr Azmi to sign the waiver presented to him in a visit by three company representatives did not serve as consideration in exchange for the agreement he signed with the company.
Interesting to note this is a civil case- injured vs the company.
Was there a prosecution case? (with the injured working before his Employment Pass, the "internal report" etc?)
Also to me, it doesn't matter if a company is ISO certified or is among "the Best Employers in Singapore" list- Character is seen through actions
This case was a civil case where Mr Azmi had sued employer Hiap Tong Crane & Transport over his injuries in the accident at the company’s premises in Soon Lee Road. He was subsequently admitted to National University Hospital for treatment and stayed there for about two weeks. He sought damages for loss of earnings, medical costs, and pain and suffering, among other things.
Hiap Tong, through lawyer Riyach Hussain, denied the claims and argued that Mr Azmi’s lawsuit was precluded by the settlement agreement inked on May 4, 2018, between the parties. However the court was not convinced by this argument and learnt at the hearing that the company had subsequently accounted for the $1,300 paid to Mr Azmi as his salary.
The court also noted that the company hired the worker before his work permit application was made and the judge called out the company’s false internal investigation report that was meant to “cure” its failure to file its permit application in time.
He noted that the report implied Mr Azmi had been interviewed for the job on April 12, 2018, and had been instructed to turn up for work on April 16. This was the date of the accident, as well as of the company making an application for the Manpower Ministry’s in-principle approval for a work permit. When Mr Azmi had his job interview on April 11 and started work on April 12.
As quoted by the judge “This false internal investigation report appears to be created to cure the defendant’s breach of failing to make a timely application for the plaintiff’s work permit, and employing him to work before he obtained the work permit,” then brazenly relied on it to allege that it was innocent of the plaintiff’s accident”.