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

2023 MarsdenLR 1127

INDUSTRIAL COURT PENANG
NITIYAWATHY RAMACHANDRAM – Appellant
Versus
IJ PHARMACY (S2) SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 665 Of 2023 [Case No: 9/4-2287/21]



Petitioner Advocates:Premkumar Danapal ,Respondent Advocate: Chong Yew Siong

The burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish constructive dismissal, which was not met in this case.

Headnote:This judgment relates to the complaint of constructive dismissal under the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The Claimant alleged violations of contract terms regarding salary payments and unfair treatment. The Court found there was no proof of constructive dismissal. Ultimately, the Claimant's case was dismissed.

Table of Content
1. the court addresses the procedural and documentary basis for the claim. (Para 1 , 2)
2. details of employment and contract terms significant to the case. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. claimant presents the core allegations regarding dismissal. (Para 7 , 8)
4. the court's duty in adjudicating dismissal cases established. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
5. evaluation of the claimant's allegations of dismissal. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
6. findings on the conduct and justification by the employer. (Para 30 , 31 , 32)
7. final determination on the claim's merit. (Para 40 , 41)
Suraiya Mustafa Kamal:

[1] The reference from The Honourable Minister of Human Resources, Malaysia pursuant to s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (hereinafter referred to as "the IRA ") in this case requires this Court to hear and determine the complaint made by Nitiyawathy a/p Ramachandram (hereinafter referred to as "the Claimant") with regard to her dismissal by IJ Pharmacy (S2) Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as "the Company") effective 13 September 2020.

[2] This Court has considered the following cause papers and documents in handing down this Award, namely:

(a) the Claimant's Statement of Case dated 20 October 2021;

(b) the Company's Penyataan Balasan Responden dated 19 December 2021;

(c) the Claimant's Rejoinder dated 21 January 2022;

(d) the Claimant's witness statement (Nitiyawathy a/p Ramachandram) marked as "CLWS-1";

(e) the Company's witness statement (Tew Chin Yong) marked as "COWS-1";

(f) the Claimant's Bundle of Documents marked as "CLB-1";

(g) the Claimant's Bundle of Documents Volume 2 marked as "CLB-2"; and

(h) the Company's Bundle of Documents marked as "COB-1".

Brief Facts Of The Case

[3] The Company was established in Malaysia with its registered office at No 87, Jalan Molek 3/1, Taman Molek, 81100 Johor Bahru, Johor. At all material times, the Company has the nature of business in pharmacy and retailer for healthcare.

[4] Pursuant to a letter dated 28 September 2018 (hereinafter referred to as "the Memorandum of Agreement"), the Claimant joined the Company on 1 October 2018 as a Provisionally Registered Pharmacist (PRP) with a monthly basic salary of RM2,400.00 and monthly allowance of RM200.00. The Memorandum of Agreement provides that the Claimant was appointed as a PRP for one year and subsequently as a Fully Registered Pharmacist (FRP) for another three years upon her successful registration with the Pharmacy Board of Malaysia with Type A Licence registered under her name at any premises assigned by the Company.

[5] Upon her appointment as PRP, the Claimant commenced her employment at the Company's outlet at Tesco Bukit Mertajam, Penang (hereinafter referred to as "the BMT Branch"). By way of a letter dated 28 April 2020 (hereinafter referred to as "the Letter of Transfer"), the Claimant was transferred to the Company's outlet at Berjaya Waterfront Complex, Johor (hereinafter referred to as "the BWC Branch"). On 30 July 2020, the Claimant tendered a letter to inform that she was resigning with two months' notice and her last working day would be on 1 October 2020 (hereinafter referred to as "the First Letter of Resignation"). Thereafter, by way of a letter dated 3 August 2020, the Company informed that it could not accept the Claimant's resignation as she had not completed her three years contract with the Company as a FRP (hereinafter referred to as "the Company's First Reply"). On 10 August 2020, the Claimant tendered another letter to revoke the First Letter of Resignation and informed that she was resigning with four months' notice and her last working day would be on 9 December 2020 (hereinafter referred to as "the Second Letter of Resignation"). The Company replied through a letter dated 11 August 2020 and informed that it did not accept the Claimant's resignation as she had not completed her three years contract from 12 December 2019 until 11 December 2022 as a FRP (hereinafter referred to as "the Company's

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