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

2023 MarsdenLR 2606

INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
FAREEN SHAZLI ALI – Appellant
Versus
KEBABANGAN PETROLEUM OPERATING COMPANY SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 1672 Of 2023 [Case No: 4/4-523/20]



Petitioner Advocates:S Mariappen ,Respondent Advocate: Vijayan Venugopal,Benedict Ngoh

The court ruled that the claimant was an independent contractor and not an employee of the company, thus unable to claim protections under the Industrial Relations Act.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20(3) - Claim for dismissal without just cause - Claimant contended that he was dismissed by the Company, asserting he was an employee, while the Company claimed he was an independent contractor under Carimin Sdn Bhd - Court found that the Claimant was not an employee of the Company but a contractor, thus ruling that the Claimant could not avail himself of the protections under the Act. (Paras 12, 19, 39, 40)

(B) Burden of Proof - In dismissal cases, the burden lies on the employer to prove just cause for dismissal; however, if the dismissal is disputed, the burden shifts to the claimant to prove he was dismissed. (Paras 15, 16)

(C) Standard of Proof - The standard required in the Industrial Court is based on the balance of probabilities, not beyond a reasonable doubt. (Paras 18)

Facts of the case:
The Claimant, engaged as a contractor by Carimin, alleged wrongful dismissal by the Company after reporting compliance issues. The Company denied employment status and claimed the Claimant was dismissed for poor performance. (Paras 4, 6, 7, 10, 11)

Findings of Court:
The Court concluded that the Claimant was not an employee of the Company but an independent contractor, thus his claims under the Act were dismissed. (Paras 39, 40)

Issues: Whether the Claimant was an employee of the Company and if the dismissal was without just cause. (Paras 19, 39)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that the Claimant's employment status was determined by the contract with Carimin, not the Company, and he failed to prove he was dismissed by the Company. (Paras 39, 40)

Result: Claimant's claims against the Company dismissed.

Table of Content
1. reference and submissions related to dismissal case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. summary of claimant's and company's arguments. (Para 10 , 11)
3. court's analysis on employment status and dismissal. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
4. finding that claimant failed to prove employment. (Para 40)
Augustine Anthony:

The Reference

[1] This is a reference dated 21 February 2020 by the Honourable Minister of Human Resources pursuant to s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ("The Act") arising out of the alleged dismissal of FAREEN SHAZLI BIN ALI ("Claimant") by KEBABANGAN PETROLEUM OPERATING COMPANY SDN BHD ("Company") on the 18 October 2019.

[2] Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the parties in this matter filed their respective submissions accordingly. This Court received the following written submissions of the parties namely the Claimant's written submissions dated 30 June 2023, the Company's written submissions dated 30 June 2023, the Claimant's written submissions in reply dated 13 July 2023 and the Company's written submissions in reply 13 July 2023.

[3] This Court considered all the notes of proceedings in this matter, documents and the cause papers in handing down this Award namely:

(i) The Claimant's Statement of Case dated 23 July 2020 with the Annexures therein;

(ii) The Company's Statement in Reply dated 10 August 2020;

(iii) The Claimant's Rejoinder dated 25 August 2020;

(iv) The Claimant's Bundle of Documents - CLB1, CLB2 & CLB3;

(v) The Company's Bundles of Documents - COB1, COB2, COB3 & COB4;

(vi) The Claimant's Witness Statement - CLW - WS;

(vii) Company's Witness Statement - COW1-WS (Miss Sangheetha a/p Jaganathan);

(viii) Company's Witness Statement - COW2 - WS (Encik Ahmad Kamal Bin Samsuddin);

Introduction

[4] The dispute before this Court is the claim by Fareen Shazli Bin Ali ("the Claimant") that he was dismissed from his employment without just cause or excuse by Kebabangan Petroleum Operating Company Sdn Bhd ("the Company") on the 18 October 2019.

[5] The Company is involved in the oil and gas industry wherein the Company is responsible for the exploration, development and production of natural gas resources from the Kebabagan Cluster fields located at the coast of Kota KInablau, Sabah. The Company entered into a contract with a third-party known as Carimin Sdn Bhd (Carimin) for the provision of general and specialist manpower services for the Company wherein Carimin is to provide individuals as contractors to perform certain functions for the Company.

[6] The Claimant, a Senior Executive for Business Assurance was one of the individuals provided by Carimin for the Company for certain selected functions and the Claimant was emplaced in the Company for this purpose. The Claimant's duties at the Company work site include tasks such as to monitor overall business efficiency and compliance to internal process and procedures. It was the Company's contention that the Company discovered the Claimant's performance in the discharge of his duties were below expectations and the same was communicated to the Claimant but despite efforts of the Company to assist the Claimant to improve, the Claimant displayed lack of interest and his performance continued to deteriorate. The Company states that in view of the Claimant's inability to meet the expectation of a Senior Executive in his role, the Company ceased his emplacement in the Company on the 11 September 2019. The Company at all times deny that the Claimant was an employee of the Company and maintains that he was an independent contractor under a contract for services with Carimin and who was emplaced at the Company to provide his services.

[7] The Claimant however contends that the Company herein is the true and real employer of the Claimant in view of the degree of control the Company has exercised over him. The Claimant denies

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