The Constitutional Court granted the petition for the whole of Article 169 paragraph (1) letter c of Law Number 13/2003 on Manpower. Number 58/PUU-IX/2012 verdict was read out by Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD assisted by six other constitutional judges.

"Article 169 paragraph (1) letter c of Law Number 13 Year 2003 on Manpower in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia Year 1945 to the extent not understood: ‘Workers / laborers can apply for termination of employment with the agency in the settlement of industrial disputes event that the employer did not pay wages on time has been determined for 3 (three) consecutive months or more, even though employers pay wages on time after that ‘," said Mahfud on Monday (16/7) in the Plenary Session of the Constitutional Court.

In the Court’s opinion read by the Constitutional Court Zoelva Hamdan, the Court refers the case argued by the Applicant experienced labor and employment law practice, timely payment of wages is very important for the worker / workers of Indonesia. This, further Hamdan, because wages are often the only income which is used as the foundation to make ends meet themselves and their families every day. Hamdan continued, the law should provide certainty for workers for the payment of wages. "When certainty in the payment of wages cannot be realized by the employer, in this case the employer does not pay wages on the appointed time for three consecutive months or more, the employee / worker may apply for termination of employment in accordance with the provisions of Article 169 paragraph (1) letter c of Law 13/2003 and the workers are entitled to receive his or her rights as stipulated in Article 169 paragraph (2) of Law 13/2003, "said Hamdan verdict read out the petition filed by Andriyani, PT Megahbuana Citramasindo workers.

In addition, said Hamdan, the right of workers to get laid off is not deterred by the actions that employers pay workers back on time after a request by a worker layoffs to the court, provided that the worker has made the necessary effort to get right to the wages paid on time but ignored by employers. This is to protect the rights of workers to obtain legal certainty and fair treatment and the right of workers to earn rewards and fair and decent treatment in employment as defined in Article 28D paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

"The Court considered the provisions of Article 169 paragraph (1) letter c of the Act a quo did not confirm whether the timely payment of wages by employers to workers after employers do not pay wages on time for more than three consecutive months of abort reasons workers to get laid off? In the case experienced by the Applicant was in the Industrial Relations Court, dismissed the petition of the petition was rejected by the court for employers to pay back wages in a timely manner after the applicant had not paid on time more than three consecutive months. Thus based on the fact that, although the Court did not try the case of concrete, has been sufficient evidence that the provisions of a quo had a fair legal uncertainty and the loss of the constitutional right of workers to earn a fair wage and decent working relationship [vide Article 28D paragraph (2) of 1945] is contrary to the principles of the constitution, "he explained.

In a conclusion which was read by Mahfud, the Court concluded that the Petitioner has the legal (legal standing) to file the petition a quo as well as arguments based on the applicant and legally groundless. "Article 169 paragraph (1) letter c of Law Number 13 Year 2003 on Manpower (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Year 2003 Number 39, Additional State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 4279) has no binding legal effect to the extent not understood: ‘Workers / laborers can termination of employment apply to the industrial relations dispute settlement institution in the event that the employer did not pay wages on the appointed time for 3 (three) consecutive months or more, while employers pay wages on time after that ‘," said Mahfud. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh/Yazid.tr)