Judicial review of Industrial Court decisions is limited to process evaluation, reaffirming the principle that findings based on evidence are not to be disturbed unless they are patently unreasonable.

JUDGMENT

Noorin Badaruddin J:

[1] The Applicant, by way of this application, seeks to challenge the decision of the Industrial Court in its Award of 114/2021 ("Award"), in the Award, the Industrial Court ruled that the 2nd Respondent ("the Company") had never at any time terminated the Applicant's employment but instead it was the Applicant who had unilaterally terminated his employment with the Company.

Facts

[2] The Applicant held the post as a Conference/Training Senior Sales Executive with a monthly gross salary of RM3,000 in the Company who is in the business of offering conferences/training to various corporations.

[3] The Applicant was offered with the post vide a Letter of Offer dated 25 June 2018 and was subsequently confirmed on 1 October 2018.

[4] The Applicant was supervised by one Ms Shamita, a Sales Advisor of the Company.

[5] On 17 July 2021 Ms Shamita informed the Applicant of the Company's retrenchment exercise which involved the Applicant. The Applicant was asked to sign a Mutual Separation Agreement which inter alia contained the Applicant's consent to end his employment with the Company and that his salary for the month of July 2019 will be paid pro-rate after deductions of EPF, SOCSO and EIS which would be released to the Applicant on 16 July 2019 and outstanding commission will also be paid once payment is received which includes commission generated from Ambank Islamic Berhad and Employee Provident Fund.

[6] Despite the inclusion of the word 'retrenchment' made in the Mutual Separation Agreement the Applicant did not sign the Mutual Separation Agreement as he wanted to seek legal advice. The Applicant then immediately left the Company's premises and had returned his access card before leaving the office premises on his own accord.

[7] The Applicant had then discovered that the Company was hiring interns to fill positions with similar roles and responsibilities such as the ones stated in his job scope.

[8] On 17 May 2019, the Applicant sent several WhatsApp messages to the Company's director, Mr Desmond Anil (COW-1) demanding for his outstanding commissions and threatening to lodge a complaint with the Labour Office. The Applicant stated that he will be returning to work as he did not sign the Mutual Separation Agreement. Exchange of communication continued to take place between both COW-1 and the Applicant and at 5.48 pm, COW-1 replied the following:

"To confirm that this is not a retrenchment from the company but a dismissal of behaviour among colleagues and lack of focus on events assign which is crucial at these current times for the company. You had left the office premises today without signing the letter this morning."

[9] In response to the above text message, the Applicant at 6.59 pm on the same date texted as follows:

"To be honest, I've never met a more idiotic boss... I also have no desire to work and bring in any revenue for Bosco anymore after your accusation and strange way of thinking."

[10] On 18 July 2019 at 3.37pm, the Applicant sent an email to COW-1 stating amongst others, as follows:

"Kindly issue a proper letter (and not a lopsided 'mutual agreement' that you produced earlier) for my further action)."

[11] Parties had subsequently met up briefly in view of resolving the issues between them but it was nevertheless unsuccessful.

[12] On 25 July 2019, the Applicant on his own accord issued an email to the COW-1 stating the followings:

"KINDLYACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THIS EMAIL AS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF MY TERMINATION OF EMPLOPYMENT on 25 July 2019 just because I refused to sign that letter that conveniently absolves you from any liability as an employer for termination of employment without just cause or excuse."

Summary Of The Applicant's Contentions

[13] The followings are the grounds relied upon by the Applicant in challenging the Award:

a) The Industrial Court had erred in its findings that the Applicant had coerced Ms Shamita to include the word 'retrenchment' in the letter in exchange for signing the Mutua