Hossain Rakib v Ideal Design: Overtime Pay Claim & Employment Act s 38(5) Interpretation
In Hossain Rakib v Ideal Design & Build Pte Ltd, the Singapore High Court heard an appeal from Mr. Hossain Rakib, a construction worker, against the Employment Claims Tribunal's decision regarding his overtime pay claim. Mr. Rakib claimed overtime pay for hours exceeding the statutory limit of 72 hours per month, which Ideal Design & Build Pte Ltd refused to pay. The High Court, presided over by Judicial Commissioner Goh Yihan, allowed the appeal, holding that section 38(5) of the Employment Act does not prevent an employee from claiming overtime pay beyond 72 hours per month when the employer required the overtime work. The court remitted the case back to the Tribunal to compute the additional amount owed to Mr. Rakib.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court rules s 38(5) of the Employment Act does not bar overtime pay claims exceeding 72 hours when employer requires it.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hossain Rakib | Appellant | Individual | Appeal allowed in part | Partial | Chan Kah Keen Melvin, Neo Zhi Wei Eugene |
| Ideal Design & Build Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Allowed | Lost | Chia Wei Lin Rebecca, Markus Kng Tian Sheng |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Goh Yihan | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Chan Kah Keen Melvin | TSMP Law Corporation |
| Neo Zhi Wei Eugene | TSMP Law Corporation |
| Chia Wei Lin Rebecca | JCP Law LLC |
| Markus Kng Tian Sheng | JCP Law LLC |
4. Facts
- Mr. Rakib, a Bangladeshi national, was employed by Ideal Design & Build Pte Ltd as a construction worker.
- Mr. Rakib's employment contract stipulated 5.5 working days a week and normal working hours from 8:00 to 17:00.
- The employment contract stated that total overtime hours should not exceed 72 hours a month.
- Between February 2021 and November 2021, Mr. Rakib worked overtime hours exceeding 72 hours in some months at the requirement of the respondent.
- Ideal Design & Build Pte Ltd refused to pay Mr. Rakib overtime pay for hours exceeding the 72-hour limit.
- Mr. Rakib brought a claim before the Employment Claims Tribunal for unpaid overtime pay.
5. Formal Citations
- Hossain Rakib v Ideal Design & Build Pte Ltd, Employment Claims Tribunal Appeal No 1 of 2023, [2023] SGHC 166
- Hossain Rakib v Ideal Design & Build Pte Ltd, , [2022] SGECT 109
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mr. Rakib employed by Ideal Design & Build Pte Ltd | |
| Employment contract signed | |
| Overtime work performed between February 2021 and November 2021 | |
| Overtime work performed between February 2021 and November 2021 | |
| Mr. Rakib's employment terminated | |
| Employment Claims Tribunal issued decision | |
| Permission to appeal granted | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Interpretation of s 38(5) of the Employment Act
- Outcome: The court held that s 38(5) does not prohibit an employee from claiming overtime pay exceeding 72 hours a month when the employer required the overtime work.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Whether s 38(5) prohibits an employee from claiming overtime pay exceeding 72 hours a month when the employer required the overtime work.
- Related Cases:
- [2022] SGHC 208
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Employment Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chua Qwong Meng v SBS Transit Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 208 | Singapore | The High Court had held in Chua Qwong Meng that s 38(5) was meant to protect the employee. |
| Sanjay Panday v Daelim Industrial Co Ltd | Employment Claims Tribunal | Yes | [2020] SGECT 106 | Singapore | The Judge referred to his own decision in Sanjay Panday v Daelim Industrial Co Ltd [2020] SGECT 106, in which he had held that the Overtime Cap was introduced in the Employment Bill (Bill No 21/1968) “not to protect a worker from overwork, but to regulate and limit workers who absorb extra work and earn extra salary, at the expense of allowing another person to be employed by the company” |
| Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 850 | Singapore | Cited for the principles of statutory interpretation in Singapore. |
| Attorney-General v Ting Choon Meng and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 373 | Singapore | Referring to the minority judgment in the Court of Appeal decision of Attorney-General v Ting Choon Meng and another appeal [2017] 1 SLR 373 |
| Taw Cheng Kong v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR(R) 78 | Singapore | It is “not correct to rely on earlier material to interpret subsequent legislation as if the subsequent legislation was tailored from a retrospective standpoint as if to fit seamlessly into the schematics of the original Act” |
| Public Prosecutor v Taw Cheng Kong | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 489 | Singapore | While Taw Cheng Kong (HC) was overruled by the Court of Appeal in Public Prosecutor v Taw Cheng Kong [1998] 2 SLR(R) 489, it is important to note that the Court of Appeal did not criticise the High Court’s approach to the interpretation of amended statutory provisions. |
| AAG v Estate of AAH, deceased | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 769 | Singapore | “[i]t is a settled principle that a statutory provision should be construed in a manner which will take into account new situations which may arise and which were not within contemplation at the time of its enactment” |
| Hasan Shofiqul v China Civil (Singapore) Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 511 | Singapore | The protective purpose of Part 4 has also been recognised by the courts in several cases |
| Rodney Antony Brown v Interactive Enterprises Pte Ltd trading as Morris Allen Study Centre | District Court | Yes | [2016] SGMC 61 | Singapore | The protective purpose of Part 4 has also been recognised by the courts in several cases |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Employment Act 1968 | Singapore |
| Employment Act 1968 s 38(1) | Singapore |
| Employment Act 1968 s 38(2) | Singapore |
| Employment Act 1968 s 38(4) | Singapore |
| Employment Act 1968 s 38(5) | Singapore |
| Employment Act 1968 s 38(6) | Singapore |
| Employment Act 1968 s 53 | Singapore |
| Employment Act 1968 s 132 | Singapore |
| Employment Act 1968 s 41A(1) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act 1965 | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act 1965 s 9A(1) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act 1965 s 9A(2) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act 1965 s 9A(4) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Overtime Pay
- Employment Act
- Overtime Cap
- Employment Contract
- Statutory Interpretation
15.2 Keywords
- Employment Act
- Overtime
- Construction Worker
- Singapore
- s 38(5)
16. Subjects
- Employment Dispute
- Overtime Pay
- Statutory Interpretation
17. Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Statutory Interpretation