CompaniesOther

Court Dismisses Former Yili Chairman Zheng Junhuai's Labour Lawsuit as Duplicate

Published: Updated: By 24TopNews Editorial Desk

A court in Inner Mongolia has dismissed a labour dispute lawsuit filed by Zheng Junhuai, former chairman of Yili Industrial Group, ruling it a duplicate of earlier cases. The Tumd Left Banner People's Court found the claims mirrored suits from 2015 and 2016, which were already rejected. Zheng sought RMB 5.84 million in unpaid salaries for 2003 and 2004, plus interest and retirement benefits. The court also noted his employment ended in 2006. The case number is (2026) Nei 0121 Min Chu 3671.

The Tumd Left Banner People's Court of Inner Mongolia recently issued a civil ruling in the labour contract dispute case filed by Zheng Junhuai against Inner Mongolia Yili Industrial Group Co. , Ltd. , dismissing Zheng's lawsuit. After review, the court found that Zheng's current lawsuit constituted a duplicate prosecution of the two lawsuits he filed in 2015 and 2016. According to civil ruling (2026) Nei 0121 Min Chu 3671, Zheng claimed to be one of the founders of Yili, having joined the Hohhot Hui District Milk Food Factory in 1983, and in 1993 promoted the factory's shareholding reform to establish Yili Industrial Co. , subsequently serving as chairman, general manager, and chief executive officer.

Zheng raised five claims: confirmation of a labour relationship with Yili from May 1996 to May 2006; payment of withheld after-tax annual salaries of RMB 3.0772 million for 2003 and RMB 2.7675 million for 2004, totalling RMB 5.8447 million; payment of overdue interest on those salaries; an order for Yili to process his retirement according to enterprise management personnel treatment and pay retirement benefits from September 2010 to December 2024; and that Yili bear the litigation costs. Zheng stated that in 2003, Yili decided to postpone the payment of senior executives' annual salaries for that year, citing the need to redesign the compensation system to implement a plan for senior executives to purchase state-owned shares as an equity incentive. Neither the 2003 nor the 2004 salary was paid. In 2006, Yili terminated the labour relationship with him on grounds of criminal involvement and refused to pay the outstanding salaries.

The court's review showed that in August 2015, Zheng first sued Yili, demanding payment of 2003 and 2004 annual salaries totalling RMB 5.84453 million, plus RMB 60,000 in director's allowance for 2004, and assistance with retirement procedures. The Hohhot Huimin District People's Court held that Zheng was a person assigned by state organs to engage in official duties at Yili, and that the dispute was not a labour dispute, issuing a ruling of non-acceptance in October 2015. After Zheng appealed, the Hohhot Intermediate People's Court rejected the appeal in January 2016 and upheld the original ruling. In July 2016, Zheng sued again with substantially the same claims. The Hohhot Huimin District People's Court dismissed the lawsuit in December 2016, and the Hohhot Intermediate Court rejected the appeal in November 2017, upholding the dismissal. Zheng applied to the Inner Mongolia High People's Court for retrial, which determined that his claims constituted a duplicate prosecution and rejected the retrial application in June 2020.

The court held that the current lawsuit involved the same parties as the previous suits, namely Zheng and Yili. The subject matter was identical: the claims in the current suit, like those in the 2015 and 2016 suits, were based on the labour rights and obligations arising from the same facts. The newly added claims for confirmation of the labour relationship, interest, retirement processing, and subsequent retirement benefits were all derived from the same legal relationship and did not create a new independent disputed legal relationship. The current claims effectively sought to negate the results of the previous rulings. After deliberation by the judicial committee, the court ruled to dismiss Zheng's lawsuit, and the prepaid case acceptance fee of RMB 10 was refunded.