Hulash (black shirt in foreground) was interviewed by a Taiwanese TV station in 2024. A TWC2 volunteer (yellow shirt) helped with Punjabi translation
On 11 February 2026, the High Court of Singapore overturned an Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT) decision in an appeal by a former migrant worker. The ruling reaffirms a clear legal boundary: employers of Work Permit holders cannot use a pre-declared “Fixed Monthly Allowance” to offset their obligation to pay for overtime (OT). This article unfolds Gena Hulash Ram’s two-and-a-half-year legal battle to claim his overtime pay. The case reference at the High Court is [2026] SGHC 73.
A Work Permit holder from north India, Hulash was employed as a vegetable packer by Lim Joo Huat Enterprise Pte. Ltd. between December 2022 and August 2023. Since there was no written employment contract, his MOM-issued In-Principle Approval (IPA) was the only official document. The IPA stated that his fixed monthly salary was $1,500, with the following breakdown:
Basic Salary: $1,000
Housing/Amenities Allowance: $200
Other Fixed Allowances: $300
Throughout his employment for nine months, Hulash worked overtime daily, but received only a flat monthly salary of $1,500. This was despite his statutory entitlement to overtime pay under Part 4 of the Employment Act. When Hulash complained, the employer countered that the $300 “others” allowance in the IPA was his OT payment, pointing to monthly payslips where this amount was indeed labelled as “Overtime.” Further, they argued that Hulash’s overtime pay (number of hours x overtime rate per hour) never exceeded $300 per month and that they owed him no additional pay.
In August 2023, Hulash left employment and filed a salary claim with the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM), the MOM unit that handles employment disputes. Following unsuccessful mediation at TADM, he escalated the overtime claim to the Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT).
Employment Claims Tribunal
At the ECT, the main issues were (1) determining the total overtime pay Hulash earned over the eight months, and (2) whether the employer should be allowed to offset overtime pay against the fixed monthly salary.
After hearing from both parties, the Tribunal Judge accepted Hulash’s evidence of actual OT hours, entitling him to OT pay of $5,711.10. However, the Tribunal allowed the employer to offset part of the OT pay with the fixed allowance, resulting in a reduced award of $3,254.84.
While Hulash felt partly vindicated by this outcome – his evidence for overtime hours having been accepted – he still believed the offsetting was not right. TWC2 also felt he was in the right, and we helped Hulash find a pro bono lawyer to appeal the Tribunal’s order, on the ground that the Tribunal’s decision to allow the offset was an error of law.
Under Part 4 of the Employment Act, low-wage employees like Hulash are entitled to extra compensation (overtime pay) pay for hours worked beyond 44 per week, in addition to their IPA-declared fixed salary. Paragraph 6B of Part IV of the Employment of Foreign Manpower (Work Passes) Regulations 2012, which applies to Work Permit holders, states that a ‘fixed monthly allowance’ cannot be used for OT pay. Read together, these provisions clearly support the conclusion that Hulash was entitled to both OT pay and the fixed allowance separately.
Appeal
The District Court granted Hulash permission on 20 June 2024 to appeal the ECT order, on the ground that the following question of law was involved: “Whether it is permissible to offset a segment of overtime pay (as outlined in section 38(4) of the Employment Act 1968) with a fixed monthly allowance as set out in an In-Principle Approval letter”.
Nineteen months later, in February 2026, the Honourable Justice Philip Jeyaretnam heard arguments from both parties in the High Court. In an oral judgment delivered that same day, the Court allowed the appeal, ruling that the offset was not permissible. The employer was ordered to pay the outstanding $2,456.27 to Hulash.
The High Court’s ruling was based on the existing law (explained above) that a fixed monthly allowance for Work Permit holders is a guaranteed component of remuneration. For the employer to treat the $300 allowance as OT, they would have been required to formally reduce the fixed allowance to zero and use the money to pay OT. Because this move constitutes a salary reduction, it strictly requires the employee’s written consent and formal notification to the Ministry of Manpower before the reduction takes place. As neither of these were done, the employer failed to meet either of these statutory requirements. The High Court held that the original fixed allowance could not be used to offset the OT pay.
Significance
The significance of Hulash’s victory is two-fold:
Firstly, it reaffirms that the salary terms stated in IPAs have weight and should not be unilaterally re-interpreted. It helps ensure that workers are free from predatory “surprises” after starting work.
Secondly, this case highlights the importance of consistent monitoring within the migrant worker justice system. Systematic oversight of salary disputes helps identify legal errors in Tribunal judgments and ensures workers receive timely advice on their right to appeal within the 7-day legal deadline. By bringing cases like Hulash’s to the High Court and supporting affected workers throughout the process, civil society helps ensure access to justice and the correct application of employment law protections.
We would like to extend special thanks to TSMP Law Corporation for representing Hulash pro bono. Their professionalism and commitment to migrant workers’ access to justice played a vital role in Hulash’s successful appeal.
During the ECT stage, TWC2 supported Hulash by assisting with evidence gathering and analysis, drafting witness statements, and navigating the Tribunal’s document management system (CJTS). We also provided a court friend for hearings, interpretation assistance, and essential welfare support, including housing, food, and transportation allowances. At the appeal stage, TWC2 continued its involvement by reviewing documents and liaising with the legal team.
The High Court’s judgement was reported in the Straits Times (behind paywall). A free-access mirrored version of the story can however be found at Stomp.
See also our earlier stories about Hulash and the many other problems he faced:
From Rajasthan to the Ministry of Manpower, part 1
From Rajasthan to the Ministry of Manpower, part 2
14712