See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/320695186

Managing hours of work and rest breaks: A Malaysian perspective

Article  in  Man in India · January 2017

CITATIONS READS
0 283

3 authors:

Hapriza Ashari Khairiah BINTI Soehod

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
11 PUBLICATIONS   5 CITATIONS    15 PUBLICATIONS   29 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Nik Ahmad Kamal Nik Mahmod

International Islamic University Malaysia
11 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A research sponsored by the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia under the FRGS grant scheme. View project

Currently on sabbatical leave and doing research on TPPA and regional trade agreements from perspective of labor rights. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hapriza Ashari on 27 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Man In India, 97 (17) : 267-277 © Serials Publications

MANAGING HOURS OF WORK AND REST BREAKS:

A MALAYSIAN PERSPECTIVE
Hapriza binti Ashari1, Khairiah binti Soehod2 and Nik Ahmad Kamal Nik Mahmod3

This paper critically analyses the provisions of the law regulating hours of work and rest breaks
in Malaysia. It explores and examines crucial legal issues on the subject and analyse judicial
judgements on related disputed matters. The key statutory provision that prescribes the law is
governed by section 60A of the Malaysian Employment Act 1955. The principal focus of this
paper is on the legal rights and protection that the law provides pertaining to working time limits
and rest breaks. The legal analysis include the topic on daily working time limit, weekly working
time limit, daily work spread over a period of ten hours and the right to in-work rest breaks. In
addition, the analysis will look into the statutory exemptions to the working time limit and also
explain the legal definitions of hours of work and normal hours of work.
Keywords: Hours of Work, Rest Breaks, Working Hours, Working Time, Employment Law.

1. INTRODUCTION
Section 60A of the Malaysian Employment Act (EA)1955 prescribes in detail the
relevant measures that should be adopted byemployers in managing employees’
hours of work and rest breaks. Managing them appropriately brings many business
advantageous because it could lead to a worthy relationship between the
management working policy and the wellbeing of the employees particularly in
terms of their safety and health. It is proven and accepted that employees getting
adequate restare more productive and engaged in safer work practices compared
to tired or fatigue employees who may cause harmful situations especially when
they are operating dangerous machines.
2. HOURS OF WORK AND NORMAL HOURS OF WORK
It is important to distinguish between the term “hours of work” and “normal hours
of work”. “Hours of work” is defined in section 60A(9) as the time during which
an employee is at the disposal of the employer and is not free to dispose of his own
time and movements. “Normal hours of work” is defined by section 60A(3)(c) as
the number of hours of work agreed between an employer and an employee in the
contract of service to be the usual hours of work per day and such hours of work
shall not exceed the limits of hours prescribed in section 60A(1).
Reading both sections together, it can be said that hours of work is the period
during which the employee is expected to carry out the duties and responsibilities
assigned to him by the employer. It does not include any interval allowed such as

1, 2
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, E-mail: hapriza@utm.my, khairiah@management.utm.my
3
International Islamic University Malaysia, E-mail: nahmad@iium.edu.my
268 MAN IN INDIA

meal breaks where the employee is completely relieved from duty. It must be
confined solely to the time taken by the employee to carry out duties and activities
at the employer’s disposal. It follows that, in computing hours of work in any one
day, regards must be made to any overtime work carried out on that day. The
reason is because during overtime period, the employee continues to be under the
control of his employer. Therefore, hours of work in any one day shall be inclusive
of any overtime work performed on that day.
Normal hours of work are the standard hours of work agreed between the
employer and employee in any one day. Basically, normal hours of work are
exclusive of any meal breaks. Nonetheless, it may include meal breaks provided
that the parties to the contract agreed that the meal breaks are to be considered as
part of their normal working hours.1 This is in line with the view of the High Court
in the Kesatuan Sekerja Pembuatan Barang Galian Bukan Logam v Malex
Industries Bhd. & Anor.,2 where it stated that it is for the parties to negotiate and
agree between themselves if the meal and tea breaks are to be considered as working
hours. With regards to overtime, normal hours of work do not include any overtime
work. The reason being that overtime work is work which is carried out beyond
the normal hours of work and thus it is totally separated from and do not form part
of the standard working hours.
3. WORKING TIME LIMIT AND REST BREAKS
Section 60A(1) stipulates the law concerning maximum hours of work and the
minimum rest breaks that should be observed by an employer in managing and
scheduling staff’s working hours and rest breaks. The law imposed on the employers
the general duty to ensure that their employees work appropriate hours with adequate
rest. This section lays down the legal requirement on four important legal facets,
namely, rest breaks, daily working time limit, daily work spread over a period of
ten hours and weekly working time limit.
3.1. Rest Breaks
Rest breaks provision is provided by section 60A(1)(a). This section states that
except as hereinafter provided, an employee shall not be required under his contract
of service to work more than five consecutive hours without a period of leisure of
not less than thirty minutes duration.
For example, if an employee’s normal working hours is from 8.00 a.m. to 5.00
p.m., his employer must ensure that he is given a break of not less than thirty
minutes at 1.00 p.m. the latest. Proviso (i) of section 60A(1) further provides that
any break which is less than thirty minutes in the five consecutive hours shall not
break the continuity of that five consecutive hours. Hence, a short tea or coffee
break of ten to twenty minutes in between the working hours shall not be construed
as a break and therefore shall be disregarded.
 MANAGING HOURS OF WORK AND REST BREAKS 269

However, proviso (ii) of section 60A(1) provides that an employee who is

engaged in work which must be carried on continuously and which requires his
continual attendance, may be required to work for eight consecutive hours inclusive
of a period or periods of not less than forty-five minutes in the aggregate during
which he shall have the opportunity to have a meal. This provision caters specifically
for employees who are involved in work which by its nature must not only be
carried on continuously but also requires continual attendance. The provision
requires both elements of continuity of work and continual or constant attendance
of the work to be conjunctively present. In such situations, the employee may be
given the liberty to take regular rest breaks at any time he is not actively on duty
and such rest breaks may be less than thirty minutes as long as the total periods of
rest breaks in a day must not be less than forty-five minutes.
The case of Lever Brothers (M) Sdn. Bhd. v National Union of Petroleum &
Chemical Industry Workers,3is concerned with the issue as to whether the company
has breached section 60A(1) proviso (i)4 for failing to provide their boiler men
with rest breaks. The facts reveal that in the past, there were two boiler men in
each shift. They went for their meal breaks in rotation. Upon the company’s re-
organisation, there was only one boiler man in each shift. Due to the shortage of
staff, the boiler men was not given fixed time off for meals and rest. Instead, an
air-conditioned room was provided in the boiler house for them to take their meals
and rest breaks when they were not actively on duty. The Union was unhappy with
this arrangement and urged the company to provide proper meal breaks to the
boiler men and that the boiler men who worked through their meal breaks be paid
overtime. In recognition that the boiler men’s duties involve work which had to be
carried out continuously and which required continuous attendance, the Industrial
Court held that the company had not breached proviso (i) of section 60A(1). Firstly,
because the company had not failed to provide the boiler man with meal breaks as
he is given an opportunity to have meals during working hours and secondly, the
meal breaks given is not less than forty-five minutes in aggregate. The Court further
said the nature of the work does not allow for the arrangement of a fixed time off
for meal breaks.
In Hagemeyer Industries (M) Sdn. Bhd. v National Union of Petroleum &
Chemical Industry Workers,5 the Industrial Court observed that provision (ii) of
section 60A(1) is specially designed for shift workers working in factories where
the machines operate continuously and must be attended to at all times. Unlike
straight shift workers who are given definite meal times each day which does not
count for work, these workers take turns to have their meals and thus they are still
on duty during the time-off for meals. Their meal times are therefore staggered.
In Paper & Paper Products Manufacturing Employees Union v Malayan Fibre
Containers Sdn. Bhd.,6 the Industrial Court dismissed the Union’s claim for paid
lunch breaks firstly because the facts show that no employee in this case is engaged
270 MAN IN INDIA

in work which must be carried on continuously for eight consecutive hours.

Secondly, the employees are given a complete and clean break from work during
lunch hour each day where there is a total shut down and the employees are free to
leave the factory premises.
3.2. Daily Working Time Limit
Section 60A(1)(b) provides that except as hereinafter provided, an employee shall
not be required under his contract of service to work more than eight hours in one
day. Whether the eight hours of work is inclusive or exclusive of meal breaks was
discussed in Toong Fong Omnibus Co. Bhd. v Transport Workers Union.7 The
Union contended that the eight hour’s work a day should include a meal break of
thirty minutes. Its contention was based on proviso (ii) of section 60A(1) which
states that an employee who is engaged in work which must be carried on
continuously and which requires his continual attendance may be required to work
for eight consecutive hours inclusive of a period or periods of not less than forty-
five minutes in the aggregate during which he shall have the opportunity to have a
meal. Conversely, the Company argued that it should be exclusive of the thirty
minute meal break because in this case the workers had been given scheduled time
off for meal breaks where during these meals breaks they are free to dispose of
their own time and movements. Moreover, the workers are not required to work
continuously. The Industrial Court held that it is clear and unambiguous that the
“eight hours in one day” as provided for under section 60A(1)(b), is in the absence
of any express provisions to the contrary, exclusive of any meal breaks. The Court
said that if Parliament intends to include meals breaks into the working hours, it
would have expressly said so.
In Dragon Phoenix Berhad, Penang v Penang &S.Prai Textile & Garment
Industry Employees’ Union,8 the Industrial Court, on the other hand, held that
working hours shall include meal breaks even though the collective agreement
had expressly excluded such breaks. By reading the facts, it can be assumed that
the decision albeit mistakenly made was done in good faith none other than with
the intention of remedying employees who has been required to work extremely
long hours. In this case, the Court was called to interpret article 14 of the collective
agreement which set the working hours for factory workers and store employees
from 8.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon and 1.00 p.m. to 4.30 p.m., excluding of lunch breaks,
with no tea break in the morning and afternoon, totalling forty-five hours per week.
Article 26(4) further states that employees who are required to work for sixteen
hours or more in any one day due to emergency shall be granted a paid day-off the
following day. The facts showed that on 29 December 1987, nine store workers
worked from 8.00 a.m. - 12.00 noon, 1.00 p.m. - 4.30 p.m., 4.30 p.m. - 12.00
midnight. On 30 December, thirteen packing workers worked from 8.00 a.m. -
12.00 noon, 1.00 p.m. - 4.30 p.m., 5.00 p.m. - 12.30 a.m. The overtime was for the
 MANAGING HOURS OF WORK AND REST BREAKS 271

purpose of fulfilling the quota from overseas for goods of the Company. The workers
however were not given a paid day-off the next day nor pay in lieu. The Company
calculated that the workers only worked for fifteen hours at a stretch, one hour
short of sixteen hours. The union, however, said that article 26(4) should be read
in the light of section 60A(1), (1A) and (1B) and thus contended that the one hour
lunch break should be included in the computation and the sixteen hours is satisfied.
The Industrial Court agrees with the union and held that sections60A(1) and
60A(1B) provide for the welfare of the workers. During the short break time, the
workers can hardly use the rest period for anything else but a quick meal and for
the stretching of the joins in the body. It is more for the welfare of the worker. The
Court pointed out that article 26(4) appears to be for the same purpose; after a long
stretch of sixteen hours when the worker has placed himself at the disposal of the
company, the company should give the workman a paid day-off and the sixteen
hours should be inclusive of the short periods of leisure, rest or break. Dissatisfied
with the decision, the company appealed to the High Court to quash the award but
it was refused. They appealed to the Supreme Court9 and the controversial issues
was finally settled when the Supreme Court concluded that the working hours
under article 14 means the actual hours the employees were at work and it shall
exclude the one hour meal breaks. The Court observed that the words contained
therein should be given their ordinary meaning. By excluding the one hour lunch
break, the total number of hours of work per day is seven and a half hours and
working six days a week works out to forty-five hours per week, which is as
prescribed by article 14. On this interpretation, the Court accepted the company’s
calculation that the employees worked only fifteen hours on 29 December. On 30
December, the Court said that the workers worked only fourteen and a half hours
and the additional half hour was worked on 31 December because “day” in its
ordinary meaning10 commences from midnight to midnight.
In contrast under proviso (ii) of section 60A(1), if the nature of work must be
carried on continuously and requires continual attendance, the employee may be
required to work for a continuous period of eight hours in which the working
hours is inclusive of meal breaks of not less than forty-five minutes in aggregate.
In this situation, due to the nature of the work, the time off for meal breaks need
not have to be fixed.
Although section 60A(1)(b) capped the maximum daily working time at eight
hours per day, upon mutual agreement, the eight hours limit in a day may be
extended to the maximum of nine hours provided that the working time is not
more than forty-eight hours in a week. Proviso (iii) of section 60A(1) stipulates
that by agreement under the contract of service between the employee and the
employer, where the number of hours of work on one or more days of the week is
less than eight, the limit of eight hours may be exceeded in the remaining days of
the week, but so that no employee shall be required to work for more than nine
272 MAN IN INDIA

hours in one day or forty-eight hours in one week. This section allows longer
hours to be worked on some days (but strictly limited to nine hours), if compensated
by shorter hours on other days. Currently, particularly due to economic factor and
backed by work-family/social concerns, many private and public organisations
opted for this provision by practicing five working days with the maximum of nine
working hours per day instead of six working days with eight working hours per
day.
3.3. Daily Spread Over Period of Ten Hours
Section 60A(1)(c) provides that except as hereinafter provided, an employee shall
not be required under his contract of service to work in excess of a spread over
period of ten hours in one day.
Section 2(1) defines “spread over period of ten hours” as a period of ten
consecutive hours to be reckoned from the time the employee commences work
for the day, inclusive of any period or periods of leisure, rest or break within such
period of ten consecutive hours. An illustration to explain this provision was given
by the Industrial Court in Plaza Hotel Kuala Lumpur v National Union of Hotel,
Bar & Restaurant Workers.11 The Court said that the phrase “spread over period”
applies in certain industries like the food and catering business where employees
have to serve tables, for example, for lunch from 11.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m., wait for
a period till dinner time and then work from 7.00 p. m. to 11.00 p.m. For the break
from 3.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. the employees may do what they like; the time is their
own. Their shift is split into two; that is why it is also called a “split shift”. In the
example given, the spread over period of work is twelve hours (the two extra hours
are considered as over time12).
The Industrial Court said that split duty is a unique feature of the hotel industry
particularly in the restaurant department where business is confined to a few hours
during lunch and dinner with a long break in between. They have to report for
work twice a day although the actual hours of work did exceed eight hours per
day. They are required to be on duty during meal time. They work when others eat.
Their meals break is either before or after others eat.13
The question as to how long meal times or rest period must be given between
the shift to split shift workers was answered in Hotel Equatorial (M) Sdn. Bhd. v
National Union of Hotel, Bar & Restaurant Workers.14 In this case, the Industrial
Court ruled that the period of leisure, rest or break for split shift workers shall be in
accordance with section 60A(1)(a), where they shall not be required to work for
more than five consecutive hours without a period of leisure of not less than thirty
minutes.
The Industrial Court in Intraline Resources Sdn. Bhd. v Mohamad Shah Gubah
Ahmad,15 attempts to clarify the provision on spread over period of ten hours in
one day as provided by section 60A(1)(c). The Court noted that section 60A(1)(c)
 MANAGING HOURS OF WORK AND REST BREAKS 273

should be read independently from subsection (1)(a), (b) and (d) for reason that it
does not synchronize with the other subsections. The Court said that to read it
conjunctively or together with the other three subsections would render these three
subsections meaningless as it is contradictory to them. However, it is arguable
whether subsection (1)(a) should be read separately from subsection (1)(c). As
noted earlier in the case of Hotel Equatorial (M) Sdn. Bhd. v National Union of
Hotel, Bar & Restaurant Workers,16 section 60A(1)(a) (and proviso (i) of section
60A(1))17 must be read conjunctively with subsection (1)(c).
3.4. Weekly Working Time Limit
The maximum weekly working time is stipulated in section 60A(1)(d). This section
provides that except as hereinafter provided, an employee shall not be required
under his contract of service to work more than forty-eight hours in one week. 18
The forty-eight hour week ensured that, on average, hours of work should not
exceed eight hours a day for a total period of six days. Thus, the total maximum of
forty-eight hours is derived by multiplying the statutory limit of eight working
hours per day with the maximum limit of six working days per week.
However, section 60C(1) allows the averaging of hours of work over a period
of three weeks in respect of shift workers. The law states that an employee who is
engaged under his contract of service in shift work may be required by his employer
to work more than eight hours in any one day or more than forty-eight hours in any
one week but the average number of hours worked over any period of three weeks
shall not exceed forty-eight per week.
4. STATUTORY EXEMPTIONS TO THE WORKING TIME LIMIT
Even though section 60A(1) precisely set the working time limit that should be
adopted by the employer in planning their employees’ working hours, the law at
the same time allows employers to make adjustments to the working hours by
carrying work outside the normal limits. The authorisation for such extensions
however, is subjected to certain safeguards and can only be carried out in the
events mention below.
4.1. The Occurrence of Special Circumstances Pertaining to the Business
Section 60A(1A) empowers the Director General, on written application of an
employer to grant permission to the employer to enter into a contract of service
with any one or more of his employees, or with any class, category or description
of his employees, as the case may be, to work in excess of the limit of hours
prescribed under paragraph (1)(a), (b), (c), and (d) but subject to such conditions,
if any, as the Director General may deem proper to impose, if he is satisfied that
there are special circumstances pertaining to the business or undertaking of the
employer which renders it necessary or expedient to grant such permission. This
274 MAN IN INDIA

type of exceptions can be categorised as permanent exceptions where work

necessarily and regularly needs to be carried out outside normal hours to address
permanent necessities of the organisation and the exact time when such work has
to be performed can be foreseen.19
Although, this section exclusively authorises the Director General of Labour
to extend the working hours limit as prescribed under paragraph (1)(a), (b), (c),
and (d) under special circumstances pertaining to the business or undertaking of
the employer, the writer believes that any extension to the working hours is subject
to the rule set in subsection (7), that is, it must not exceed twelve hours in any one
day. Obviously, the legislative body has reasons why it only allows the daily working
time (inclusive of overtime) to be capped at twelve hours per day. Clearly, one of
the basic aims of the Employment Act is to protect the welfare and well-being of
the employees and subsection (7) proves to support such intentions. It is hoped
that no matter how special and serious the events, all party involved in employee
relations must ensure that the provisions of the statute are implemented towards
the intended aims. Moreover, in exercising his power to extend the working time
limit, the Director General must balance between work-family responsibility of
the employees and the special needs of the employer.
To safeguard the interest of the employee, the proviso of section 60A(1A),
authorises the Director General to revoke the approval given under this subsection
at any time if he has reason to believe that it is expedient to do so.
Section 60A(1B), on the other hand, permits any person who is dissatisfied
with any decision of the Director General under subsection (1A), within thirty
days of such decision being communicated to him, to appeal in writing there from
to the Minister. On an appeal made to him under subsection (1B), the Minister is
allowed by subsection (1C) to make such decision or order thereon as appears just,
and such a decision or order shall be final.
4.2. The Occurrence of Certain Events
Section 60A(2) authorises an employer to exceed the limit of hours prescribed
in subsection (1) and may require his employees to work on a rest day, in the case
of:
(a) accident, actual or threatened, in or with respect to his place of work;
(b) work, the performance of which is essential to the life of the community;
(c) work, essential for the defence or security of Malaysia;
(d) urgent work to be done to machinery or plant;
(e) an interruption of work which was impossible to foresee; or
(f) work to be performed by employees in any industrial undertaking essential
to the economy of Malaysia or any essential services as defined in the
Industrial Relations Act 1967.
 MANAGING HOURS OF WORK AND REST BREAKS 275

This type of exceptions may be regarded as temporary or periodical exceptions

where work has occasionally to be carried out outside normal hours to address
temporary necessities of the organisation and the exact period when such work
needs to be carried out cannot be foreseen.20 As an attempt to protect the employees
against any exploitation, this section further empowered the Director General to
enquire into and decide whether or not the employer is justified in calling upon the
employee to work in the circumstances specified in paragraphs (a) to (f). Indirectly,
this provision enables the employer and employee to seek the assistance of the
Director General in ascertaining whether it is justifiably to extend working hours
due to the occurrence of certain event.
Disputes may arise regarding the types of events that may fall within the ambit
of subsection (2)(a) to (f). For example, in Palmex Industries Sdn. Bhd. v Public
Prosecutor,21 the employee changed his shift with his friend which had resulted in
him working more than eight hours in a day (two split shifts in a day). The change
was allowed by the employer because the employer claimed that it had no choice.
The employer submitted that it is justifiable to do so by section 60A(2)(e), because
if the change was not allowed the employee could just absent himself and that
would cause an interruption of work. The Industrial Court however disagreed with
the employer’s contention and said that section 60A(2)(e) is not meant for a situation
like this. It is meant for a situation where there is an interruption of work which is
impossible to foresee. The Court decided that, in this case the interruption, if any,
was clearly foreseeable.
In Malayan Commercial Banks’ Association/Ban Hin Lee Bank Bhd. v
Association of Bank Officers, Peninsular Malaysia,22 the Court of Appeal ruled
that services rendered by a bank employee is indeed an essential service according
to the Schedule23 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967, thus under section 60A(2)(f)
of the Employment Act 1955, a bank employee can be required by his employer to
work on a rest day. Although this case was directly involved with the issue of
compelling employees in the banking sector to work on a rest day, the ruling of the
Court may also be extended and applied in situations where employees in any of
the essential services are required to work beyond their working hour limit. It
follows that under section 60A(2)(f), an employer in any of the essential services
may compel their employees to work longer hours in a day (however, it is limited
to twelve hours a day24) and may also require their employees to work on a rest
day.
In Hagemeyer Industries (M) Sdn. Bhd. v National Union of Petroleum &
Chemical Industry Workers,25 the Industrial Court noted an important point, as a
reminder particularly for the employee, when it said that it was not necessary for
the employer to obtain the consent of the workers for overtime work in the
circumstances detailed out by section 60A(2)(a) to (f) that need overtime work to
be performed.
276 MAN IN INDIA

5. CONCLUSION
Section 60A of the EA 1955 seems to impose precise measures on working hours
and rest breaks to protect the safety and health of employees. It clearly set the
length of workday and work week through caps. An employee is also guaranteed
with in-work rest breaks for the purpose of rest, refreshment and attending personal
needs. Finally, the Act facilitates employees with affirmative protection from being
compelled to work excessive hours against their will except in certain limited
circumstances which is precisely prescribed under the Act. To safeguard the interest
of the employee as well as the employer, the Director General of Labour is granted
the power to decide whether to permit any applications for the extension of working
hours beyond the limits prescribed.
Finally, to ensure that the provisions on working hours and rest breaks are
enforced, section 99A makes it an offence to employ any person outside the hours
or during the intervals fixed by the law. Any infringement may lead to a financial
penalty not exceeding ten thousand ringgit.
Notes
1. See EngGiap Public Motor Bus Co. Ltd. v GanEngKeng&Ors. [1975] 1 MLJ 106 at
paragraph I, page 108
2. [1998] 1 LNS 192 at page 193.
3. [1990] 2 ILR 394
4. The law has been amended, this provision has now become provision (ii) of section 60A(1).
5. [1984] 1 ILR 254
6. [1980] 1 ILR 237a
7. [1991] 2 ILR 1015
8. [1991] 2 ILR 1015
9. [1991] 1 MLJ 89
10. See section 2, “day” is defined as a continuous period of twenty-four hours beginning at
midnight.
11. [1985] ILR 266
12. ( ) emphasis added. See also Employment Act 1955, the proviso of section 60A(3)(b).
13. Hotel Equatorial (M) Sdn. Bhd. v National Union of Hotel, Bar & Restaurant Workers
14. Ibid.
15. [2007] 1 ILR 393
16. Ibid.
17. ( ) emphasis added.
18. Under section 2,”week’ means a continuous period of seven days.
19. Report III (Part IB): General Survey Of The Reports Concerning The Hours Of Work
(Industry) Convention, 1919 (No.1) And The Hours Of Work (Commerce And Offices),
 MANAGING HOURS OF WORK AND REST BREAKS 277

1939 Convention (No.30), 53. International Labour Office, Geneva,<http://www.ilo.org/>

(accessed 4 June 2010).
20. Report III (Part IB): General Survey of the Reports Concerning the Hours of Work (Industry)
Convention, 1919 (No.1) and the Hours of Work (Commerce and Offices), 1939 Convention
(No.30), 54. International Labour Office, Geneva,<http://www.ilo.org/> (accessed 4 June
2010).
21. [1989] 2 MLJ 373
22. [1996] 2 CLL 31
23. In the Schedule, the Essential Services specified are: 1. Banking services. 2. Electricity
services. 3. Fire services. 4. Port, dock, harbour, and airport services and undertakings,
including stevedoring, lighterage, cargo handling, pilotage and storing or bulking of
commodities. 5. Postal services. 6. Prison services. 7. Production, refining, storage, supply
and distribution of fuel and lubricants. 8. Public health services. 9. Radio communication
services, including broadcasting and television services. 10. Telegraph, telephone and
telecommunication services. 11. Transport services by land, water and air. 12. Water services.
13. Any service provided by any of the following Departments of Government: (i) Chemistry.
(ii) Civil Aviation. (iii) Customs and Excise. (iv) Immigration. (v) Marine. (vi) Meteorology.
(vii) Printing. 14. Services which are concerned with, or related to, or which assist towards,
the maintenance and functioning of the armed forces and the Royal Malaysian Police Force.
15. Business and industries which are connected with the defence and security of Malaysia.
16. Any section of any service, on the working of which the safety of the employees therein
or of the establishment relating thereto depends. 17. Industries declared by the Minister by
notification in the Gazette as industries essential to the economy of Malaysia.
24. See Employment Act 1955, section 60A(7).
25. [1983] 1 ILR 325.

View publication stats