Zahrin bin Rabu v Ying Tai Plastic & Metal Manufacturing (S) Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chua F A J
• Judgment Date: 18 November 1983
• Neutral Citation: [1983] SGCA 9
• Citation: [1983] SGCA 9
• Date: 18 November 1983
• Year: 1983
• Plaintiff Counsel: Karuppan Chettiar and Myint Soe (Murphy & Dunbar)
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 37 of 1982
• Defendant Counsel: SB Shah (SB Shah)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Published date: 19 September 2003

The respondent (plaintiff) claimed damages for personal injuries received by him in the course of his employment with the appellants (defendants).

It was ordered that the issue (as raised in the defence) whether the respondent was precluded from bringing any action for damages in the High Court be tried as a preliminary question of law.

The preliminary issue was heard by AP Rajah J and the learned judge held that the respondent was not precluded from maintaining the action.

The appellants appealed. The appeal was dismissed with costs but we reserved judgment on the interpretation of s 33(1) of the Workmen`s Compensation Act 1975 (the Act).

The facts were these. The appellants, who carry on the business of manufacturing plastic products for the electronic industry, employed the respondent as a machine operator. The respondent is illiterate both in Malay and English. On 23 May 1981, the respondent, in the course of and arising out of his employment, met with an accident as a result of which he lost four fingers of his right hand. He reported the accident to his office, and was admitted to the Singapore General Hospital where he was treated for his injuries.

Some time after he left the hospital and while at home he received a letter from the Commissioner of Labour which had enclosed in it a document similar to exh P2 and the document exh P3, which was then unfilled except for the figures 7353/81 inserted against `NWCR` and 25 May 1981 inserted against `Accident On`.

He went to the Commissioner`s office some four or five days after receipt of the letter, but before he did so he returned to work with the appellants. He did not speak to any one at his employers` office about the letter. He said that when he went to the Commissioner`s office on 7 June 1981, he did not know what the contents of the exh P2 and exh P3 were. He also said that at the office of the Commissioner no one interpreted or explained exh P2 or exh P3 to him and that he affixed his right thumb print to exh P3 in the belief that he was acknowledging the receipt of the Commissioner`s letter to him.

Exhibit P3 as it now stands reads:

NWCR 7353/81

Commissioner for Labour

Accident on 25 May 1981

8 July 1981

I, Zahrin bin Rabu (I/C No: 1717481 I Date of Birth: 24 October 1964) residing at 3 Lorong Lihat, Singapore 2470 wish to claim compensation for injuries sustained in the above mentioned accident under Workmen`s Compensation Act.

2 I wish to claim against the employer/ employer`s insurer.

7 July 1981

(RTP of Zahrin bin Rabu)

On 12 January 1982, the respondent`s solicitors wrote to the Commissioner to put on record that the respondent had not applied for workmen`s compensation in that he had signed the letter of 7 July 1981, under the misrepresentation that it was an acknowledgement slip and asked the Commissioner to treat the said letter as cancelled. (Exhibit D1.)

On 29 January 1982 the Commissioner replied:

Since your client, Zahrin bin Rabu, wishes to claim damages under common law in respect of the above accident, please note that this office will take no further action on this matter. (Exhibit D2.)

Section 33 of the Act provides:

(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall be deemed to confer any right to compensation on a workman in respect of any injury if he has instituted an action for damages in respect of that injury in any court against his employer or if he has recovered damages in respect of that injury in any court from his employer, and no action for damages shall be maintainable in any court by a workman against his

...