SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 4335

INDUSTRIAL COURT IPOH
AZMAN ISA – Appellant
Versus
TECHNIP GEOPRODUCTION (M) SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 45 Of 2025 [Case No: 10(16)/4-2492/21]



Petitioner Advocates:Bhavanash Sharma,Chetna Brijmohan ,Respondent Advocate: Poh Kuang Horng

Fixed-term employment contracts cannot be terminated without just cause or excuse under Malaysian law, and the employer bears the burden of proof in dismissal cases.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Sections 20(3), 22(2), 22(3), and 29(g) - Claimant's employment terminated by Company - Claimant contended termination was unlawful and without just cause - Court found that Company exercised sufficient control over Claimant's employment, establishing an employer-employee relationship - Allegations against Claimant were not substantiated and termination was not conducted in accordance with due process - Claimant entitled to compensation for remaining contract period. (Paras 1, 66, 77, 79)

(B) Employment Contracts - Fixed-term contracts cannot be terminated without just cause or excuse - The concept of termination simpliciter is not recognized under Malaysian industrial jurisprudence - The employer bears the burden of proof to justify termination. (Paras 75, 76)

Facts of the case:
The Claimant was employed by the Company under a fixed-term contract as a Structural Supervisor for a project in Vietnam. His employment was terminated on 12 December 2020, which he claimed was unlawful. (Paras 3, 7, 66)

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the Claimant's termination was without just cause and ordered the Company to pay the remaining 20 months of the fixed-term contract amounting to USD57,140. (Paras 77, 79)

Issues: Whether the Claimant was a workman under the Act, whether the Company was liable as his employer, and whether the termination was with just cause. (Paras 38)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the Company had sufficient control over the Claimant's employment, thus establishing an employer-employee relationship, and that the termination was not justified as the allegations were unsubstantiated. (Paras 66, 77)

Result: Claimant's claim allowed; Company ordered to pay remaining contract amount.

AWARD

Zulhelmy Hasan:

Reference

[1] This is a reference made by the Director General of Industrial Relations Malaysia dated 6 September 2021 pursuant to s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 which was received by the industrial Court on 28 September 2021 arising out of the alleged unfair dismissal of Azman Bin Isa (hereinafter referred to as "the Claimant") by Technip Geoproduction (M) Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as "the Company") on 12 December 2020.

Factual Background

[2] The hearing of this matter was conducted and heard before YA Puan Azwarnida binti Affandi, the Chairperson at the Industrial Court of Malaysia, Johore Branch on 16 November 2022 and 6 March 2023. However, due to unforeseen circumstances and transfer of the previous presiding Chairperson to another government agency, and to expedite the disposal of this matter in due course, the President of the Industrial Court of Malaysia on 27 November 2024 had transferred this matter to the Industrial Court of Malaysia, Perak Branch for the Chairman of the said division to adjudicate and handed down the Awards pursuant to s 22(2) and 22(3), and s 29(g) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 .

[3] The Claimant was once employed by the Company for RAPID project in Penggerang, Johor. He left the Company after the expiry of his fixed-term contract. Thereafter, sometime around May 2020, the Company received an email from the Claimant applying for a Structural Supervisor position wherein that was around the time, the project site requires such manpower (pp 5-6 of CLB-1). The Company then conducted an internal review of the Claimant's application and was satisfied that the Claimant fitted into the budget and specifications requirement at the project site. Thereafter, the Company processed the Claimant's application by forwarding it to TPSK site office for the site's approval. In the meantime, the Company also set out the essential terms and conditions of the said position to the Claimant to obtain confirmation of his interest in the said position (pp 3-4 of CLB-1). The Company was informed that TPSK site office accepted the Claimant's application and requested for the Claimant's placement at the site project.

[4] The Claimant in this representation was offered a position as a Structural Supervisor on a project managed by the Company in Long Son Ward, Vung Tau City, Ba Ria-Vung Tau in Vietnam until 31 July 2022. Due to working permit requirements and the labour law in Vietnam, the Company appointed a Vietnamese human resources provider company, Minh Viet Co Ltd as an agent to supply manpower from Malaysia to the Company's project located in Vietnam.

[5] The Claimant accepted the offer with the Company and was hired by the Company with Minh Viet Co Ltd as their agent vide a fixed-term employment contract dated 7 August 2020. The Claimant's fixed-term employment begins from 7 August 2020 until 31 July 2022 with net basic salary is fixed at USD 2,857 per month. Other allowances such as meals, accommodation and transportation will be provided by the Company, as per the practice at Long Son site. Mobilization, demobilization and rotation tickets shall also be provided by the Company. The Claimant's working hours are would be 8 hours a day for 6 days per week as the Claimant works for 11 weeks and rest for 2 weeks including travelling days with fully paid leave. The Claimant subsequently was mobilized to Vietnam to begin his contract as a Structural Supervisor, and began working on 22 August 2020, reporting to Mr Astin Choi, his superior at the site, and to the Company, as well.

[6] On 15 October 2020, the Claimant applied for leave for a total of seven (7) days from 26 October 2020 to 1 November 2020 which was approved by the Company's headquarters at Kuala Lumpur. However, the Claimant received an e-mail from the Company informing him of a complaint reported to the Company's site Management by his immediate superior, Mr Astin Choi vide an email dated 24 October 2020 whic


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top