Constitutional Court (MK) refused entirely petition filed by employees of PT Dream Sentosa Indonesia. Decision No. 84/PUU-XII/2014 was recited by Chief Justice Hamdan Zoelva.

In the Court\'s opinion, the Court argued the legal basis for the establishment of the UU PHI is the Industrial Dispute Settlement Act (UU PPHI) which is recognized in the era of industrialization that industrial disputes have become more complex, requiring the replacement of the old legislation and the establishment of new institutions and mechanisms to ensure the completion of a simple, rapid, and inexpensive resolution. According to the Court, the mechanism of PHI formation in a region through a Presidential Decree (Keppres) Law 2/2004 command that it cannot be interpreted as government intervention to PHI.

It is because the President is the authority to comply the Act. Keppres is the legal basis for the establishment of the court, in this case the PHI as a special court in general court structure. According to the Court, orders the law is something that should be done and not contrary to the Constitution 1945. "Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court, the petition is deemed has no legal grounds," said Justice Aswanto.

In the main the previous petition, the Petitioner objected to Article 59 point (2) of the Act the new Bill. Article 59 paragraph 2 of Law Dispute Resolution states that "In the District / Municipal solid primarily industrial, within Keppres shall immediately be formed is the Industrial Relations at the local Court". Applicant worker friend who accompanied other workers who are currently proceeding in the Supreme Court in the case of a court dispute resolution Industrial Relations Bandung financially litigants are limited to a very long process that takes months or even up to a year more.

The applicant has been adversely affected by the Industrial Relations Court located at 100 KM radius over the place in the capital city of West Java province. In terms of industrial relations at loggerheads over 100 KM radius of course, requires non-small cost to be incurred, both the Petitioner and the parties are at odds as well as the case of Decision No. 37/G/2014/PHI/Court between PT Gen Sentosa Bandung Indonesia. (Lulu Anjarsari/mh/Kun)