Dismissal without just cause occurs when an employer does not provide a termination letter or fails to prove grounds for dismissal, necessitating compensation for unexpired contract periods.

Noor Ruwena Mohd Nurdin:

Reference

[1] This is a reference made under subsection 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 [Act 177] ("the 1967 Act") arising out of the dismissal of Ooi Boon Khim (hereinafter referred to as "the Claimant") by Spottorder Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as "the Company") on 8 March 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 8 March 2019 and was received by the Industrial Court on 17 September 2019.

Factual Matrix

[3] The Company is a Malaysian registered, wholly owned subsidiary of Spott Pte Ltd (a Singaporean company) and in the business of developing commerce applications as its primary activity and develops other business support activities such as junkets and administration of loyalty programs as its secondary activity. The Company's business address as registered with Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia is in Kuala Lumpur and still in existence.

[4] The Claimant commenced employment with the Company on 1 June 2018 for one year as a Technical Project Manager with a monthly salary RM18,000.00. he lead the team in solution development projects and was in charge of co-ordinating the developer and external teams to define project requirements and plans. The Claimant claimed constructive dismissal where he was purportedly dismissed from his employment when the Company did not pay his salary for the months of January and February 2019. Hence, the Claimant claimed that his employment contract was deemed to be terminated immediately when the Company did not respond to his queries on his employment status as the Company was facing some financial difficulties. The Company also did not pay him the three months balance of his salary from the one-year contract of employment. He claimed that his dismissal was without just cause or excuse.

[5] The Company in its pleadings did not dispute that a dismissal took place but averred that it was on 8 March 2019 when the Company terminated its employees in February 2019. The Company further pleaded that it was facing financial difficulties and that cnstituted just cause or excuse. It acknowledged its liability for the January and February salaries but at the time of the hearing, it had paid the Claimant the January 2019 salary which the Claimant did not dispute. Therefore, the Company claimed that it had the right to terminate the Claimant with immediate effect pursuant to cl 14.1 of the Employment Contract dated 30 May 2018.

Issues And Law

[6] The Claimant prays that this Court holds his dismissal was without just cause or excuse as the Company had breached the terms and conditions of the employment contract by its failure to pay his outstanding salaries. He therefore claims reinstatement, backwages, interest, compensation in lieu of reinstatement and his unpaid salary for the month on January 2019 as well as other sum deemed fit by the Court.

[7] The Claimant has made his representation under s 20 of Act 177 and where such representations have been made and are referred to the Industrial Court for inquiry, it is the duty of the Court as stated by the Federal Court in the case of Wong Yuen Hock v. Syarikat Hong Leong Assurance Sdn Bhd and another appeal , 1995 MarsdenLR 1088 to determine whether the termination or dismissal is with or without just cause or excuse. In Hotel Malaya Sdn Bhd & Anor v. National Union of Hotel, Bar & Restaurant Workers & Anor; 1982 MarsdenLR 13 ; it was stated that in exercising this quasi judicial function, the Court's functions comprise an investigation of the facts, an analysis of the facts, findings of facts and lastly the application of the law to those findings. Hence, the role of the Court is to determine whether the Claimant was indeed dismissed on 8 March 2019 and if so, whether the dismissal was without just cause or excuse. Although it is incumbent upon the Court to inquire into the issue of justness or the excuse on its merits,