The cessation of operations due to financial losses justified the retrenchment of employees, as the employer demonstrated a bona fide need for business closure.

[1] This reference stems from the dismissal of Andrew David Nicolson ("the 1st claimant"), Michael Colin Parsons ("the 2nd claimant"), Ian Maxwell ("the 3rd claimant"), Stuart Ian Worrow ("the 4th claimant"), Lee Michael Jones ("the 5th claimant"), Peter Fortnam ("the 6th claimant"), Douglas Robert Chester ("the 7th claimant") and Matthew Clive Walton ("the 8th claimant") by Lotus Engineering Malaysia Sdn Bhd ("the company") on 30 September 2012.

[2] Vide Award No: 276 of 2014 dated 19 February 2014, the court struck- off the reference with regard to the 2nd and 6th claimants. The said matter was mentioned on 11 February 2014. On the said mention date, the court was informed by the solicitor for the company that 2nd and 6th claimants have failed to attend the mentions fixed herein before and 11 February 2014. The said company's solicitor applied to have the matter struck off as against these two claimants as they seemed disinterested in pursuing their claims in court.

[3] Vide Award No: 1005 of 2015 dated 18 August 2015 the court considered view that the claimant's contention that adding the 1st and 2nd joinee is necessary is without merits. The claimants' said Notice of Application is therefore dismissed.

Brief Facts

[4] This reference stems from the dismissal of six claimants, namely, Andrew David Nicolson (the 1st claimant), Ian Maxwell (the 2nd claimant), Stuart Ian Worrow (the 3rd claimant), Lee Michael Jones (the 4th claimant), Douglas Robert Chester (the 5th claimant) and Matthew Clive Walton (the 6th claimant). All six claimants were expatriates employed on fixed term contracts with valid work permits issued by the Department of Immigration. All six claimants were employed by the company at various dates and have had their contracts of employment renewed successively at varying times and dates. All six claimants held different positions within the company. Vide the letter dated 24 September 2012, the company issued the notice to the six claimants informing them that the company will cease to trade with effect from 28 September 2012 and that alternative employment and opportunity to relocate within the DRB-Hicom/ Proton/Lotus Group will be offered. Vide the letter dated 25 September 2012 the company dismissed the six claimants from their services with two months' notice period. The claimants were informed that they will be contacted if there were potential roles for them within the Group Companies. Vide their letter dated 28 September 2012, the company went on to summarily dismissed the claimants with effect from 30 September 2012.

[5] The company contends that prior to their letter dated 24 September 2012, the claimants were briefed about the impending cessation of trade on 10 September 2012. It is their contention that they managed to secure alternative employment for their 58 local employees within the Group Companies but could not find employment for the six claimants noting the specific nature of their job scope and duties. The company contends that it has remained dormant since ceasing its operations in September 2012.

Issues And Law

[6] It is the claimants' pleaded case that there was no genuine redundancy and aver that they had been victimised. They plead that their dismissals were without just cause or excuse and that there were other reasons for their dismissals. On the other hand, it is the company's contention that the claimants were made redundant when it ceased its operations as a result of it becoming insolvent. The company contends that as a result of it ceasing to trade and conduct its business, the positions held by the six claimants ceased to exist and resulting to their termination. The company avers that the reason for the cessation of operations was that the business had become untenable due to the continued non-payment of work from a key customer.