Abdul Kadir Sulaiman JCA:-

[1]This is an appeal against the decision of the learned judge of 15 October 1999 affirming the decision of the Penolong Pengarah Buruh Kanan, Segamat ("the Pengarah"), allowing the claim of the respondents for termination benefits under the Employment (Termination and Lay-Off Benefits) Regulations 1980 ("the 1980 Regulations"). The Pengarah made an order for the appellant to pay the respondents RM114,001.42 as such benefits because the appellant could not withdraw unilaterally its notice to terminate the services of the respondents. We heard the arguments on 6 April 2004 and reserved our decision on the appeal. We now provide our decision.

[2]The first respondent was a mandore and the rest were rubber tappers employed by the Claire Estate owned by the appellant. The appellant by a letter dated 31 October 1995 gave them 8 weeks termination notice to take effect from 1 January 1996. The reason given was that their positions on the estate would be redundant as a result of the felling of old rubber trees in the estate. They were told that their employment with the estate would cease on 1 January 1996 when appropriate termination benefits and any other monies due to them would be paid. However, some 40 days before 1 January 1996, the appellant by another letter of 20 November 1995, informed them that due to a review of the company's policy on the matter it has been decided that they would not be declared redundant upon the felling of the old rubber trees. They were requested to treat the appellant's earlier letter of 31 October 1995 as withdrawn and cancelled and they were told to report for work as usual on 1 January 1996 whereupon they would be allotted their normal duties. This information concerning the change of policy on the part of the appellant did not come as a relief to the respondents, for by a letter dated 5 December 1995, they informed the appellant that they have made all necessary arrangements in accordance with the appellant's letter of 31 October 1995 terminating their services on 1 January 1996. They requested the appellant to abide by its letter of 31 October 1995 and to make appropriate steps to pay out the termination benefits, as promised, on expiry of the termination notice. The appellant responded by its letter of 8 December 1995 maintaining the validity of its stand to withdraw the letter of 31 October 1995 on grounds that the withdrawal of the notice of termination was effected well in advance of the expiry of the notice period. As such, the respondents were accordingly advised to abide by the estate's decision on the matter and to report for work as usual on 1 January 1996 whereupon they would be allotted their normal duties. This time they were warned that failure to report for work on that date would tantamount to abandoning their contract of service with the estate.

[3]The respondents did not return to work on 1 January 1996 as expected. So by a letter dated 3 January 1996, the appellant wrote to them as follows:

Dear Sir,

Re: Absence from Work

We refer you to our letters Ref. 29/401-95 dated 20th November 1995 and 31/401-95 dated 8th December 1995 instructing you to report for work as usual on 1st January 1996. We note that till this date you have failed to report for work as directed without just cause or excuse and without prior permission from the Management. As you may no doubt be aware, vide Section 15(2) of the Employment Act 1955, you shall be deemed to have broken your contract of service if you have been continuously absent from work for more than two consecutive working days without prior leave or no reasonable excuse for such absence.

In view of your absence from work without prior leave, you are now required to show cause in writing on receipt of this letter as to why the Management should not treat your absence as abandonment of your contract of service.

You are further advised that should you failed or refuse to respond to this letter immediately, and