After the appointment of the Ombudsman, the parties are required to participate in a pre-mediation conference at which the Ombudsman will meet with the parties for the first time, explain the mediation process and reveal potential or actual conflicts of interest (if any). The Ombudsman will also ask the parties to provide a summary of the relevant facts and documents. At the end of the pre-medation conference, the parties must sign a conciliation agreement. Even if proceedings had been initiated, “a transaction would stop the proceedings” (Sambu (M) Sdn Bhd/Stone World Sdn Bhd – Anor, 1996). Mediation is always worth a try. In the best case scenario, conciliation will result in an amicable settlement. In the worst-case scenario, the parties are more aware of their respective positions as they continue the dispute resolution process. Make the most of your mediation by consulting a lawyer who knows the legal area of your litigation, mediation and the settlement process. In most cases, parties are more likely to accept and comply with the transaction agreement because mediation focuses on and responds to the needs and interests of the parties.
As a result, the dispute between the parties is resolved more effectively through mediation than litigation. In addition, mediation is a more advantageous method for parties wishing to maintain family or business relationships. Since the same work contract may be subject to a multiple auction procedure, a transaction should not definitively close the entire work contract. Instead, the comparison could be limited to certain payment certificates. Such a scheme would not preclue a future decision on future payment certificates, but must certainly put an end to the dispute over these certificates that will be settled. If this is the case, a transaction concluded before the start of the procedure must necessarily exclude the initiation of proceedings. Finally, the effect of the colony is exactly the same. Under the above decision, in the event of non-compliance with a transaction agreement registered before the IRD, the worker is not allowed to take the case back and have it prosecuted in the industrial court under Section 20 of the IRA. This does not mean that the innocent party is left without recourse; the innocent party can enforce the agreement through the usual civil court proceedings (for example. B for the recovery of funds under the agreement).
The Court of Appeal agreed that under the transaction agreement, “there is no longer a pending decision and/or order of the Tribunal to be enforced, as the above orders and/or judgments are suspended or extinguished by the transaction contract.” The Court of Appeal upheld the position of the Indian Overseas Bank/Motorcycle Industries  Pte Ltd e.a. (1992), that “a settlement or compromise constitutes a new independent agreement between them for good review” and that such a scheme would be considered “totally in lieu of the original means”.” The reason for my view is simple and has recently been confirmed in the case of Pacific Sanctuary Holdings Sdn Bhd v Masaland Construction Sdn Bhd (2020). In this case, Masaland Construction Sdn Bhd [Masaland] is a judge of Pacific Sanctuary Holdings Sdn Bhd (PSH) for more than $10 million.RM.