1. Article 6
Prohibition of
Slavery
and
Forced Labour

2. Similarities and Differences
of
A Free Man – Forced Labour – A Slave

3. A Free Man Have the
Liberty in
relation to
employment
Complete
Liberty
Forced
Labourer
Have no or
limited liberty in
relation to
employment
Liberty is limited
A Slave Have no or
limited liberty in
relation to
employment
No Liberty

4. • According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a
slave is ‘a person who is the legal property of
another or others and is bound to absolute
obedience, a human chattel.’
• A slave is not paid for services rendered and
may be sold.
• A person engaged in forced labour is paid but
may not be sold.
• Common to both situations is the crucial
elements of the lack of personal freedom and
exploitation.

5. La International Lawwss oonn tthhee EElliimmiinnaattiioonn ooff
SSllaavveerryy aanndd FFoorrcceedd LLaabboouurr
1. Slavery Convention
2. Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons
and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others
1. Abolition of Forced Labour Convention
2. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights

6. Art. 6 (1) No person shall be held in slavery.
Absolute Prohibition
No Exception
It only exists illegally and in secret (outside
the knowledge of the authority).

7. Art. 6 (2) All forms of forced
labour are prohibited.

8. Exceptions ttoo PPrroohhiibbiittiioonnss iinn AArrtt.. 66(22)
There are conditions not affected by the
constitutional prohibitions stated in (2) of
Article 6.
The conditions are stated in Art. 6 (2), (3)
and (4).

9. Exceptions to Prohibitions in Art.
6 (2)
They are as follows:
1. Compulsory military/national service.
– Art. 6(2)
2. Work undertaken by a prisoner which is
incidental to a sentence of imprisonment.
– Art. 6 (3)
3. The compulsory employment of a doctor in the
service of the government - Part VII of the
Medical Act 1971.
- Art. 6 (4)

10. Barat Estates Sdn Bhd & Anor v Parawakan a/l
Subramaniam & Ors
[200] 4 MLJ
-S 12 and 13 of the Employment Act 1955
S 12 (1) of the Act permits either party to a contract of
service to terminate it by giving notice.
S 12 (2) sets out the appropriate period of notice that
ought to be given depending upon the duration of
the contract.

11. The respondents (Parawakan and 336 workers)
were employed by the first appellant (Barat
Estates) on two estates. The appellant owned
both estates.
In September 1990, the appellant sold both
estates to Prospell Enterprise Sdn Bhd
(‘Prospell’).
The appellant wrote a letter to the respondents
informing them of the sale of the estates to
Prospell and said that the change of ownership
would not affect the terms and conditions of the
respondents’ service.

12. Prospell also wrote to the respondents Parawakan
and 336 workers) offering them to continue their
employment.
All the respondents accepted Prospell’s offer.
The respondents later commenced an action
against the appellants.
They claimed an indemnity under s 13(1) of the
Employment Act 1955 on the ground that the
appellants had failed to give them notices of
termination of their contracts in accordance with
s 12 of the Act.

13. The issue before the High Court was
whether the appellants were obliged to
indemnify the respondents under s
13(1) of the Act.

14. The right to make a choice in the context
of employment is a constitutional right.
It is in accordance with art 6 of the
Federal Constitution.
‘Compelling an employee to work for a
particular employer, without affording
him a choice in the matter, is merely
one form of forced labour.’

15. It is in recognition of the constitutional
right that the Employment Act 1955
preserves in an employee the choice of
his employer.
Further, the Act vests in the employee the
right to be indemnified by his former
employer for the loss of the right.