The company is involved in providing security services to its clients, inter alia Tenaga Nasional Bhd. (TNB). Vide letters dated 11 April 1990 and 30 June 1990 (COB - pp. 3 to 7) it received two demands for credit notes from TNB on account of over-billing for services at the company's Kapar power station.

COW2, the company's managing director, stated that the company became very alarmed over these developments. If the complaints by TNB were true, besides being open to the charge of having dishonestly billed TNB for services which were not rendered by the company, the company was in breach of their contractual obligations and ran the risk of having its contract with TNB terminated. The company decided to investigate the claims by TNB that it had billed the former for the services of security guards who were absent.

The claimant was the officer-in-charge of the TNB power station at Kapar where the alleged over billing took place. The company decided to transfer him to the company's regional office at Kuala Lumpur to facilitate their investigations (COB - p. 8). The claimant, however, refused to go on transfer to Kuala Lumpur (COB - p. 9). He was then permitted to remain in Klang; however, he was posted to the Klang coastal office (COB - p. 10). While the company was investigating the matter, it decided to suspend the claimant from his duties. According to COW2, the company's managing director, the company was concerned that the claimant may hinder its investigations. Vide COB - p. 11 dated 30 July 1990 the claimant was advised of the suspension with immediate effect from 30 July 1990. He was also to report to the company's head office at Kuala Lumpur to be informed of a date for an inquiry.

The claimant reported to the managing director on 1 August 1990 at the company's head office. The managing director told the claimant that he had been suspended until further notice. This appears from the claimant's letter to the company dated 15 August 1990 (COB - p. 12). In that same letter the claimant stated that he had not been given actual details of his suspension. He requested for an early inquiry. He informed the company that he had been paid only half his July 1990 wages and requested that the balance be paid to him.

The company received the claimant's letter dated 15 August 1990 only on 20 August 1990. Upon receipt of the same COW2, the company's managing director, directed the company's regional manager to, check on the matter and to proceed with inquiry. He also checked the legal position with the company's labour consultant on the day he received the letter.

The regional manager subsequently wrote to the claimant on 21 August 1990 (COB - p. 14) requesting the claimant to report to the company's head office for an interview on the latter's suspension. By then, however, the claimant had considered that he had been constructively dismissed by a letter dated 20 August 1990 (COB - p. 13). The letter reads as follows:

Your action in not paying in my July wages in full and suspending me against the provisions of the Employment Act 1955 , is a serious breach of contract.

You have also failed to respond to my last letter dated 15 August 1990.

I therefore consider myself dismissed and will take legal remedy.

Despite having written COB p. 13 wherein the claimant considered himself to have been dismissed he nevertheless reported to the company's head office on 24 August 1990 as instructed by COW1, the regional manager vide the latter's letters (COB p. 14) and a telegram (COB p. 15). The claimant, however, refused to accept the notice of domestic inquiry (COB p. 16) containing the allegations made against him.

The issue before the Court is whether the company had committed any fundamental breach of the claimant's contract of service giving the claimant the right to claim that he had been constructively dismissed by the company. The letter at COB p. 13 sets out the claimant's basis for claiming that he had been constructively dismissed. The first basis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document