SINGAPORE: A migrant worker has secured a legal victory after the High Court overturned an earlier tribunal ruling, ordering his former employer to pay more than S$5,700 in overtime wages following a protracted two-year dispute.
In a judgment delivered on Tuesday (April 7), Justice Philip Jeyaretnam allowed the appeal filed by Indian national Gena Hulash Ram, finding that his employer’s method of compensating overtime through a fixed monthly allowance breached Singapore’s employment laws.
At the heart of the case was a S$300 monthly payment listed as “others” in employment records. The employer argued that this allowance was intended to cover overtime work regardless of the number of hours performed. The court, however, rejected this position, ruling that such an arrangement was incompatible with statutory requirements governing overtime pay.
Gena had worked as a packer at a fresh produce wholesaler between December 2022 and August 2023. His in-principle approval letter issued by the Ministry of Manpower stated a basic monthly salary of S$1,000, with additional fixed payments of S$200 for housing and S$300 categorised as “others”, bringing his total monthly pay to S$1,500. The document also specified an overtime rate of S$7.87 per hour.
The dispute arose over whether the S$300 allowance could be used to offset overtime payments calculated based on actual hours worked. In December 2023, Gena filed a claim with the Employment Claims Tribunal seeking S$5,711.11 in unpaid overtime wages.
While the tribunal acknowledged that overtime had been worked, it allowed the employer to offset the payments against the fixed allowance. Under this approach, the worker would receive the S$300 allowance if his overtime earnings fell below that amount, and only the excess if they exceeded S$300. The tribunal reasoned that the classification of the allowance as “overtime” in payslips constituted a contractual agreement, reducing the awarded sum to S$3,254.84.
Unhappy with the outcome, Gena appealed. Justice Jeyaretnam described the case as raising “a simple but important point of law” on how overtime provisions under the Employment Act should be interpreted.
In overturning the earlier decision, the judge made clear that employers cannot impose a cap or fixed sum on overtime payments. He emphasised that overtime must be calculated strictly based on the actual number of hours worked.
The court further noted that employment terms set out in Ministry of Manpower documentation clearly distinguish between basic salary, fixed allowances and overtime pay. Fixed monthly allowances, the judge said, must not include any element of overtime compensation.
In his judgment, Justice Jeyaretnam rejected the employer’s argument that the arrangement was administratively convenient, warning that allowing such practices would effectively dilute the declared overtime rate and undermine statutory protections for workers.
The High Court reinstated Gena’s full claim of S$5,711.11 and ordered the employer to pay S$9,000 in legal costs.
Gena was represented on a pro bono basis by lawyers Melvin Chan Kah Keen and Amelia Tan Han Ru from TSMP Law Corporation. Justice Jeyaretnam commended their efforts, noting that such work reflects the legal profession at its best.
The case also received support from migrant worker advocacy groups, including Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (HOME) and Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2), which assisted Gena after he first sought help in 2023.
Gena has since left Singapore. His lawyer told the press that while the sum involved might appear modest, it was significant for the worker.
