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

2023 MarsdenLR 2715

INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
CHEN SIO MENG – Appellant
Versus
IK PLANTATION SERVICES SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 1311 Of 2023 [Case No: 22(12)/4-125/20]



Petitioner Advocates:Harikannan Ragavan,Ho Xin Ying ,Respondent Advocate: Vinu Kamalanathan,Sarah Tiong Wei Shin

The court ruled that the claimant failed to establish an employment relationship with the company, thus precluding any claims of constructive dismissal under the Industrial Relations Act.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20(3) - Dismissal and employment status - Claimant alleged constructive dismissal by Company after salary discrepancies and termination notice - Company contended Claimant was never its employee but employed by PT Karya Sawit Lestari - Court found Claimant failed to prove employment relationship with Company. (Paras 1, 5-12, 15, 43)

(B) Employment Status - Definition of 'workman' under Section 2 of the Act - Claimant must prove existence of contract of service to establish claim - Court held Claimant did not meet burden of proof regarding employment status. (Paras 16-20, 42)

(C) Constructive Dismissal - Court ruled that issues of constructive dismissal and just cause for dismissal need not be examined as Claimant was not an employee of the Company. (Paras 15, 43)

Facts of the case:
The Claimant commenced employment as an Accountant in 2007, later claimed constructive dismissal due to salary issues and lack of notice regarding termination. The Company disputed his employment status, asserting he was employed by another entity.

Findings of Court:
The Court concluded there was no employment relationship between the Claimant and the Company, thus dismissing the claim.

Issues: The main issues included whether the Claimant was a workman of the Company and whether there was constructive dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that the Claimant bore the burden of proving his employment status, which he failed to do, leading to the dismissal of his claim.

Result: Claim dismissed.

Table of Content
1. reference under industrial relations act (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. factual background of claimant's employment (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. preliminary issues regarding workman status (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
4. definitions of employment under act (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
5. evidence supporting claimant's employment contention (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
6. claimant's bank statements and phone bills (Para 35 , 36 , 37)
7. failure to produce evidence and adverse inference (Para 39 , 40)
8. court's jurisdiction and employment contract requirements (Para 41)
9. finding on claimant's employment status (Para 42)
Paramalingam J Doraisamy:

Reference

[1] This is a reference made under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (Act 177), arising out of the dismissal of Chen Sio Meng (hereinafter referred to as "the Claimant") by IK Plantation Services Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as "the Company") on 1 October 2019.

[2] The Ministerial reference in this case required the Court to hear and determine the Claimant's complaint of dismissal by the Company on 1 October 2019.

I. Procedural History

[3] The case was initially registered in Court No 12 and mentioned on 5 February 2020, 11 March 2020, 24 August 2020, 28 August 2020 and 6 October 2020. It was thereafter transferred to this Court, ie Court No 22, and mentioned on 6 January 2021, 15 June 2021, 3 August 2021, 17 March 2022 and 19 July 2022.

[4] The trial commenced on 21 February 2023 and concluded on 22 February 2023.

II. Factual Background

[5] The Claimant commenced his employment with the Company as an Accountant vide Letter of Appointment dated 23 March 2007 with a monthly salary of RM5,000.00. At the time the Claimant considered himself as constructively dismissed, he was holding the position of Financial Controller with a monthly salary of RM15,000.00.

[6] The Claimant was only paid a salary of RM10,000.00 for the month of July 2019 instead of his actual salary of RM15,000.00.

[7] The Claimant contends that on 12 August 2019, without prior notice, Datuk Ishak Bin Ismail ("Datuk Ishak") verbally notified the Claimant that the Claimant's position as the Financial Controller ceased with immediate effect ensuing from the announcement of the Company's entity separation. Following from that, the Company did not pay the Claimant his salary for the month of August 2019.

[8] On 3 September 2019, the Claimant wrote to the Company seeking an explanation as to his employment status and also seeking for the balance salary for the month of July 2019 and the salary for the month of August 2019 to be paid. The Company however did not respond to the Claimant's letter and also did not pay the Claimant his salary for the month of September 2019.

[9] On 24 September 2019, the Claimant wrote to the Company again seeking an explanation as to his job status and also seeking for the balance salary for the month of July 2019 and the salaries for August and September 2019 to be paid. In the same letter, the Claimant also gave notice that if he did not get a reply from the Company and his full salary within 7 days from the date of the letter, he would consider himself as being constructively dismissed.

[10] The Company responded vide letter dated 24 September 2019 wherein they claimed that the Claimant was employed by PT Karya Sawit Lestari ("KSL") and as such the Claimant was asked to refer his grievances to Dr Kamaruzaman Bin Mohamath Shariff (CLW-2) and that they had no relation with Datuk Ishak. The Company did not make any payment of the Claimant's full salary as per the Claimant's request.

[11] On 1 October 2019, the Claimant sent a notice to the Company to notify that he considered himself as constructively dismissed with immediate effect.

[12] It is the Company's stand however that the Claimant was never employed with the Company and that the Company has no record of the same.

[13] The Company further contends that it is a managing agent of

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