The court upheld that a dismissal on grounds of redundancy was valid as the employer proved a bona fide cessation of job functions, demonstrating adherence to the principles governing fixed-term employment.

[1]This is a reference by the Honourable Minister of Human Resources under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 on 20 May 2011 arising out of the dismissal of Maniyarasan a/l Muniandy (the "Claimant") on 1 April 2010 by Science Technics Sdn Bhd (the "Respondent").

[2]The hearing of this case commenced and completed on 15 June 2012. The Claimant's solicitors, Messrs Loh & Associates filed the Written Submissions on 26 March 2013. The Respondent's solicitors, Messrs Kanesalingam & Co filed their Written Submissions on 11 September 2012 and Submissions in Reply on 5 April 2013. The Claimant was initially represented by K Gunaseelan of the Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC) when the Court was informed on 4 September 2012 in Encl (29) that the Claimant is represented by his new solicitors Messrs Loh & Associates.

Brief Facts

[3]The Claimant commenced employment with the Company as Boilerman with effect from 20 April 2009 as reflected in the Claimant's letter of appointment signed by the Respondent's Managing Director, Dr R Alagaratnam in the Claimant's Bundle of Documents (CL:1) and COB-1, p 1. The Company is in the business of manufacturing food ingredients, specifically food additives and is also operating a factory where it engages in amongst other things spray dying which requires the operation of a boiler. The Respondent issued the Claimant a letter entitled "Termination of Employment" dated 23 February 2010 (CL:2) signed by Dr R Alagaratnam whereby the Claimant's employment was terminated effective from 1 April 2010 as follows:

"Re: Termination of Employment

This is to inform you that your employment with the company is terminated with effect from 1st April 2010 thus giving you one (1) month notice in lieu of termination. "

[4]The Claimant contends in paras 6 and 7 of the Statement of Case filed by A Balasubramaniam of MTUC that there were no proper assessment done on his performance and that the Claimant's termination of services was without lawful cause or excuse.

[5]The Respondent contends in para 7.1, Statement in Reply that "the temporary nature of the Claimant's employment being grounded on the tenure of the Operation was communicated to him before his appointment and at all stage during his employment." The Respondent contends further in para 8.3 that "the managerial power retrenching the Claimant for redundancy was exercised bona fide and not for any collateral purpose."

The Law

[6]The function of the Industrial Court is explicitly stated in the case of Goon Kwee Phoy v. J & P Coats (M) Bhd, at p 136 where the Federal Court decided inter alia as follows:

"Where representations are made and are referred to the Industrial Court for enquiry, it is the duty to that Court to determine whether the termination or dismissal is with or without just cause or excuse. If the employer chooses to give a reason for the action taken by him the duty of the Industrial Court will be to enquire whether that excuse or reason has or has not been made out. If it finds as a fact that it has not been proved, the inevitable conclusion must be that the termination or dismissal was without just cause or excuse. The proper inquiry of the Court is the reason advanced by it and that Court or the High Court cannot go into another reason not relied on by the employer or find one for it."

[Emphasis added]

[7]The term "redundancy" has been defined by Dunston Ayudurai in Industrial Relations in Malaysia, Law & Practice, 3rd Edn at pp 255 and 256 as follows:

"Redundancy refers to a surplus of labour and is normally the result of a reorganization of the business of an employer, and its usual consequence is retrenchment, ie the termination by the employer of those employees found to be surplus to his requi