The court upheld the dismissal of an employee as justified due to retrenchment, emphasizing the employer's burden to prove genuine redundancy and proper procedure in the dismissal process.

[1] This is a reference from The Honourable Minister of Human Resources, Malaysia to the Industrial Court of Malaysia pursuant to s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (hereinafter referred to as "the IRA ") in respect of the dismissal of Ch'ng Suat Teng (hereinafter referred to as "the Claimant") by her employer, HP Bina Jaya Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as "the Company") effective 10 July 2020.

[2] This Court has considered the following cause papers and documents in handing down this Award, namely:

(a) the Claimant's Statement of Case dated 23 October 2021;

(b) the Company's Statement In Reply dated 25 November 2021;

(c) the Claimant's Rejoinder dated 20 January 2022;

(d) the Claimant's Witness statement (Ch'ng Suat Teng) marked as "CLWS-1";

(e) the Company's Witness Statement (Goh Eng Khoon) marked as "COWS-1";

(f) the Company's Witness Statement (Chua Heng Poh) marked as "COWS-2";

(g) the Claimant's Bundle of Documents marked as "CLB-1"; and

(h) the Company's Bundle of Documents marked as "COB-1.

Brief Facts Of The Case

[3] The Company is a registered company in Malaysia.

[4] The Claimant commenced her employment with the Company on 24 April 2017 as an Accounts Executive and was confirmed in her position vide a letter dated 17 July 2017. Pursuant to a letter dated 11 June 2020, the Claimant was notified of her termination of employment on the ground of retrenchment with effect from 10 July 2020 (hereinafter referred to as "the Letter of Termination"). The Claimant's last drawn basic salary at the time of her dismissal was RM4,200.00 per month.

The Claimant's Case

[5] In her Statement of Case, the Claimant contends that she holds the position of an Accounts Executive at the time of her dismissal which did not greatly affect the Company's financial loss and as such, her dismissal on the grounds of retrenchment was misplaced and an abuse of the Company's managerial right to termination of contract. The Claimant also contends that she was never informed by the Company of its financial status, and denied she had left the Company as it was the Company that had dismissed her by way of the Letter of Termination.

The Company's Case

[6] In its Statement In Reply, the Company states that:

(a) by way of the Letter of Termination, the Claimant was informed that the Company was facing financial difficulties and that the Company needed to downsize its workforce;

(b) the receipt of the Letter of Termination was acknowledged by the Claimant without any objection;

(c) by way of another letter dated 15 June 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the "Second Letter of Termination"), the Claimant was informed that her last day of employment should be on 14 August 2020 and that she must disregard the Letter of Termination which was issued four days earlier;

(d) the Second Letter of Termination was served on the Claimant but she had refused to acknowledge receipt;

(e) on 10 July 2020, the Claimant left the Company without notice and proper handout, and did not report to work since then;

(f) by way of a letter dated 13 July 2020, the Claimant was requested, inter alia, to submit application and/or letter for voluntary release but there was no reply from the Claimant; and

(g) by way of a letter dated 24 September 2020, the Claimant was requested to return to the office to complete the proper handout but there was no reply from the Claimant.

[7] With regards to the Claimant's dismissal, the Company's contentions in the Statement In Reply are as follows:

(a) since the Financial Year 2017/2018, the