This is a case of constructive dismissal - a form of dismissal which has a legal dimension of its own. Constructive dismissal denotes conduct by an as entitles a workman himself to terminate the employer amounting to a breach of contract such contract summarily. Lee Kim v. Tai Lee Chan Plywood Agency (Award No. 119/80) . A unilateral alteration of the contract of employment by the employer at least in an important aspect, gives the workman the right to terminate the contract without notice, and so may amount to constructive dismissal. (See C.P. Mills) - Industrial Law Disputes in Malaysia. The poignant words of the claimant, Vincent Lee, encapsulate the sad predicament in which the Lotteries Corporation (Sabah) Sdn. Bhd., Sabah (the company) placed him on 25 September 1989. In his letter to the executive director of the company dated 16 January 1990, Ex: CO 13 he lamented as follows:

The claimant was promoted as personnel and administration manager of the company with effect from 1 December 1988. His last drawn basic salary was $2,240. The company confirmed him in his appointment as personnel and administration manager with effect from 1 March 1989. The executive director Datuk Lee Shong Mai in his letter of confirmation stated:

We hope you will continue to maintain your efficiency and the high standard of your work.

Obviously the claimant's work performance was unimpeachable and he enjoyed the confidence and trust of the company. The executive director, however at a special meeting of the company on 25 September 1989 which commenced at 3.09 p.m. and ended at 3.30 p.m. presented a new organisation chart Ex: CO 7A which dramatically and unilaterally altered the claimant's status and position in the company to be effective immediately. In Award No. 237/87 Kumpulan Akitek 2, Kumpulan Dua (H) Sdn. Bhd. 3 K.A. Khidmat Sdn. Bhd. v. Mustapha bin Harun and Kamarul Hashim [1987] 2 MELR 603; [1987] 2 ILR 80 , the Industrial Court, stated:

It is the right of the employer to reorganise his business in the way he likes for the purpose of economy or convenience provided he acts bonafide.

The claimant's name was conspicuously absent from this chart. The post of personnel and administration manager was however retained but the claimant's name was dropped as personnel and administration manager and he appears to have disappeared into oblivion in the company, as he had not been given, designated or transferred to any other position in the company. This was a great fall for the claimant. It was literally a stab in his back, as he did not have an inkling of an idea or a fore-warning, or a hint that he was to be unceremoniously dropped from his inspired position as personnel and administration manager of the company at 3.09 p.m. on 25 September 1989. Thereafter the company committed a series of acts calculated to damage and destroy the relationship of trust and confidence between the claimant and the company. Under the new organisation chart the general manager, operations was En. Ng Kim Sam, the general manager, projects, was En. C.K. Wong. The claimant introduced evidence that there were differences of opinion between these two gentlemen and in fact a private war between them resulting in the claimant being wounded and victimised. The private war and the series of unilateral acts repudiatory of the claimant's contract of employment will be referred to later. The claimant after the new reorganisation was stripped of all his previous powers and duties and was put in cold storage. The claimant in his evidence dramatised his anguish and frustration when he said in evidence:

My mind was going