Back
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
TAN SENG WONG – Appellant
Versus
LUDWIG AIR HEALTH SDN BHD – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claimant's role and engagement with the company. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 2. legal classification of the claimant. (Para 18 , 24 , 25) |
| 3. criteria for determining employment status. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. evidence pertaining to claimant's employment status. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 5. inconsistencies in claimant's assertions. (Para 38 , 39 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
| 6. claimant's actions undermining employment claim. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57) |
| 7. failure to show evidence of employment. (Para 58) |
[1] The company took over the business from another owner after a proposal came through the claimant who was instrumental in establishing the business and their main area of business was distribution of air purifier.
[2] The claimant was actively involved in brokering the sales and purchase of the business before the company took over the business from the previous owner. The taking over exercise of the business includes taking over of the existing agents and the business in the region.
[3] Since the claimant was already involved in the bus
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
