The court ruled that a dismissal during a company's winding up is fair if just cause is established, and the burden of proof lies with the claimant to support claims.

[1] This is a reference dated 17 March 2021 made by the Minister of Human Resources pursuant to subsection 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 [Act 177] arising out of the dismissal of Chong Jee Fat ("the Claimant") by Tee E & C (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd ("the Company") on 30 June 2020.

Brief Facts

[2] The claimant was appointed as Assistant Manager, Infrastructure of Tee M & E Engineering Sdn Bhd on 4 January 2016. The claimant stated that the company later changed its name to Tee E & C (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd ("the company") and it was not objected to by the company's representative. The claimant was then asked to voluntarily resign on 30 April 2020 but the claimant refused. The company then terminated the claimant's employment via later dated 1 May 2020 that was emailed to him (this fact is disputed by the claimant). The termination letter gave the claimant a two month notice and the effective final date of employment was 30 June 2020. The claimant filed a representation to the Director General of Department of Industrial Relations on 4 August 2020 claiming that he was unreasonably or unfairly terminated. The claimant had also stated that his termination was actually a retrenchment and the company had failed to fulfil the requirements of retrenchment under the law.

[3] The company, in their reply stated that the company was not getting any business and as such there was a redundancy. Further, the company stated that the claimant was terminated and not a retrenchment as claimed by the claimant.

[4] The date of the trial was 15 November 2022 and parties were representing themselves without any counsel. During the trial, the claimant countered the company's claim in the SIR by saying that although the company was not making money but claimed that Tee International Ltd ("the Singapore company") was and since the company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Singapore company, then it should be the Singapore company to bear all the liabilities of the company. The claimant went further by saying he was actually part of the Singapore company but that statement was not supported by any evidence. However, the company's representative actually works for the Singapore company and is a Singapore National.

[5] Further, the company said that it was in the midst of winding-up proceedings with documents provided in the company's bundle of documents. The court had instructed the parties to confirm the status of the company to which both parties did not reply. There were only two witnesses called for the entire case namely the claimant himself and the company's representative. Upon conclusion of the trial on the same day, the court instructed parties to submit their written submissions. The court had to further instruct the parties on their roles and purpose of the submissions as well as its importance specifically in relation to trying to support their relevant cases.

[6] The court has gone through the evidence as given through testimony in court and the documents and submissions that have been filed. Those documents and submissions are listed for ease of reference as follows:

(i) statement of case dated 23 August 2021;

(ii) statement of reply dated 30 August 2021;

(iii) rejoinder dated 22 January 2022;

(iv) the claimant's bundle of documents marked as CLB1 dated 23 August 2021;

(v) the company's bundle of documents marked as COB1 received 15 November 2022;

(vi) the claimant's witness statement marked as CLWS1 dated 15 November 2022;

(vii) the company's representatives witness statement marked as CO