Decision Analysis Of Debt Payment Obligations Number 270/Pdt.Sus-Pkpu/2019/Pn.Niaga.Jkt.Pst Regarding Legal Attempt To Fulfill The Rights Of Workers/Labors
Keywords:
Debt Payment Obligation Postponement, Rights, WorkersAbstract
Decisions towards industrial relations disputes which have permanent legal force and certainty in its implementation are expected to guarantee justice for the parties, especially workers/labors. However, in practice, it is not easy to execute a decision that has permanent legal force, encouraging workers/labors to use the bankruptcy institution as an effort to obtain payment for their rights that have been regulated in the provisions of the legislation. This study aims to analyze the decision for debt payment obligation postponement of the Commercial Court at the Central Jakarta District Court Number 270/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2019/PN.Niaga/Jkt.Pst related to legal attempt to fulfill workers' rights. According to the results of this paper, it can be seen that the court's decision which has permanent legal force punishing employers to pay for the rights of workers/labors is a debt in a broad sense. Industrial relations court decisions which have permanent legal force but cannot be implemented can be submitted as the basis for a request for suspension of obligation to pay debts. In this case, the court refers to the definition of debt in a broad sense, the debt has matured, the existence of two or more creditors, and the application of simple evidence.
References
I. Puspita Sari and A. Yunus, “Tanggung Jawab Perusahaan Terhadap Pemenuhan Upah Pekerja dalam Proses Pemberesan Boedel Pailit,” J. Magister Huk. Udayana (Udayana Master Law Journal), 2019, doi: 10.24843/jmhu.2019.v08.i03.p08.
Y. N. Fatimah, “Penyelesaian Perselisihan Hubungan Industrial di Pengadilan Hubungan Industrial dalam Pemenuhan Hak Pekerja/Buruh Yang di Putus Hubungan Kerja,” Pandecta Res. Law J., 2015, doi: 10.15294/pandecta.v10i2.4954.
I. Noviar, “Peranan Pemerintah Daerah dalam Memberikan Perlindungan Terhadap Hak-Hak Pekerja/Buruh Terutama Berupa Pemenuhan Atas Upah yang Layak,” J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2019.
Undang-Undang Nomor 17 Tahun 2003, “Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 17 Tahun 2003 Tentang Keuangan Negara,” in Climate Change 2013 - The Physical Science Basis, 2003.
D. Dauman, “KENDALA PELAKSANAAN PEMBAYARAN KOMPENSASI PEMUTUSAN HUBUNGAN KERJA BERDASARKAN UU RI NO. 13 TAHUN 2003 TENTANG KETENAGAKERJAAN (Studi Kasus Pada PT Pelayaran Nasional Indonesia(Persero)),” J. Huk. Replik, 2018, doi: 10.31000/jhr.v6i2.1443.
D. Cahyono, “PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM BAGI PEGAWAI PADA INSTANSI PEMERINTAH DENGAN SISTEM PERJANJIAN KERJA OUTSOURCING,” Mimb. Keadilan, 2015, doi: 10.30996/mk.v0i0.2120.
U. 1945, “Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 13 Tahun 2003 Tentang,” Undang. No 13, 2003.
M. Yuniati, “PROFIL TENAGA KERJA PEREMPUAN BERDASARKAN UMUR, TINGKAT PENDIDIKAN, SEKTOR FORMAL, INFORMAL DI PROVINSI NTB TAHUN 2016 – 2018 BESERTA ANALISIS EKONOMINYA,” MEDIA BINA Ilm., 2019, doi: 10.33758/mbi.v13i12.270.
R. H. Zenda and Suparno, “Peranan Sektor Industri Terhadap Penyerapan Tenaga Kerja Di Kota Surabaya,” J. Ekon. Bisnis, 2017.
Z. Ibrahim, “EKSISTENSI SERIKAT PEKERJA/SERIKAT BURUH DALAM UPAYA MENSEJAHTERAKAN PEKERJA,” J. Media Huk., 2017, doi: 10.18196/jmh.2016.0076.150-161.
O. W. Budijanto, “Upah Layak Bagi Pekerja/Buruh dalam Perspektif Hukum dan HAM,” J. Penelit. Huk. Jure, 2017, doi: 10.30641/dejure.2017.v17.395-412.
H. Hariyadi, “Restrukturisasi Utang sebagai Upaya Pencegahan Kepailitan pada Perseroan Terbatas,” SIGn J. Huk., 2020, doi: 10.37276/sjh.v1i2.61.
A. Hamonangan and D. Tambunan, “PERANAN KURATOR TERHADAP KEPAILITAN PERSEROAN TERBATAS,” J. RECTUM Tinj. Yuridis Penanganan Tindak Pidana, 2021, doi: 10.46930/jurnalrectum.v3i1.820.
N. M. L. S. Devi and I. M. D. Priyanto, “Kedudukan Hukum Perseroan Terbatas Yang Belum Berstatus Badan Hukum,” Kertha Semaya J. Ilmu Huk., 2019, doi: 10.24843/km.2019.v07.i05.p02.
Cholifatun Nisa’, “Akibat Hukum Pengesahan Perdamaian (Homologasi) Terhadap Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang Dalam Hal Debitornya Perseroan Terbatas,” Jurist Diction, 2019.
N. Sari, “TINJAUAN YURIDIS PEMBATASAN JANGKA WAKTU PENUNDAAN KEWAJIBAN PEMBAYARAN UTANG TERHADAP DEBITOR,” Kertha Patrika, 2017, doi: 10.24843/kp.2017.v39.i02.p02.
Y. Y. Panggo and N. Arifudin, “Kajian Hukum Tentang Upaya Pencegahan Kepailitan Perusahaan Berdasarkan Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 Tentang Kepailitan Dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang,” J. Beraja Niti, 2014.
M. P. Z. Muhajir, “Penyimpangan Bentuk Upaya Hukum Terhadap Putusan Pailit Akibat PKPU Gagal,” Notaire, 2019, doi: 10.20473/ntr.v2i1.12899.
E. Yuanita, “ANALISIS TERHADAP PUTUSAN PENGADILAN NIAGA ATAS PENOLAKAN PERMOHONAN PERNYATAAN PAILIT YANG DIAJUKAN OLEH PT. MAGNUS INDONESIA TERHADAP PT. GARUDA INDONESIA,” J. Huk. Pembang., 2017, doi: 10.21143/jhp.vol36.no3.1259.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Proceeding of The International Conference of Inovation, Science, Technology, Education, Children, and Health
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
