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

2023 MarsdenLR 1673

INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
MOHD HAMDI MOHMAD ZAINI – Appellant
Versus
GDP INTERIORS SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 1581 Of 2023 [Case No: 4/4-44/22]



Petitioner Advocates:Mohamad Nasruddin Ab Rahman ,Respondent Advocate: Tuan Hajjaral Aswani Tuan Ibrahim,Nor Akmar Shamsuddin

An employer must provide just cause for dismissal, supported by evidence. Failure to do so results in a ruling of unjust dismissal and entitlement to compensation.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20(3) - Dismissal without just cause or excuse - Claimant dismissed by Company citing force majeure due to economic situation - Claimant contested dismissal, asserting ongoing projects existed - Company failed to prove justification for dismissal as per statutory requirements - Court ruled dismissal was without just cause and ordered compensation. (Paras 1, 10, 38, 48)

(B) Burden of Proof - Employer must prove just cause for dismissal - Failure to provide cogent evidence leads to ruling of unjust dismissal. (Paras 12, 13)

(C) Force Majeure - Employer must demonstrate specific contractual provisions to invoke force majeure - Company could not substantiate claims of force majeure related to COVID-19 pandemic. (Paras 18, 19)

Facts of the case:
The Claimant was employed since 2006, dismissed on 10 December 2020, with Company claiming force majeure due to economic downturn, while the Claimant argued ongoing projects existed and termination was unjust. (Paras 5, 6, 8, 9)

Findings of Court:
The Court found the dismissal lacked just cause, as the Company failed to provide adequate justification or follow proper procedures. (Paras 38, 39)

Issues: Whether the dismissal was justified based on the claimed force majeure and whether the Company followed proper procedures in terminating the Claimant. (Paras 6, 10, 12)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Company failed to demonstrate that the dismissal was justified or that it adhered to the necessary legal standards, ruling that the Claimant was unjustly dismissed. (Paras 38, 39)

Result: The Company was ordered to pay the Claimant RM142,800.00 as compensation for unjust dismissal. (Paras 48)

Table of Content
1. reference and case initiation details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. claimant's employment details and dismissal reasons. (Para 5 , 6)
3. summary of claimant's and company's arguments. (Para 8 , 9)
4. role of industrial court in dismissal cases. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. burden and standard of proof in dismissal cases. (Para 13 , 14)
6. force majeure requirements. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
7. redundancy and retrenchment definitions. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
8. criteria for assessing retrenchment validity. (Para 26 , 27 , 28)
9. evaluation of evidence regarding dismissal. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
10. court's ruling on dismissal and compensation. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)

[1] This is a reference dated 4 January 2022 by the Director General of the Department of Industrial Relations, Ministry of Human Resources pursuant to s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ("The Act") arising out of the dismissal of MOHD HAMDI BIN MOHMAD ZAINI ("Claimant") by GDP INTERIORS SDN BHD ("Company") on the 10 December 2020.

[2] It was mutually agreed by all parties that the instant case be heard together with Case No: 4/4-43/22 (between Nadiah Binti Othman v. GDP Interiors Sdn Bhd [2023] MELRU 1580). As these cases have not been consolidated but only heard together, this Court will hand down separate and distinct Award for each individual case which highlights the distinct facts of each of the cases. For convenience the Claimants in the above cases may also be referred to in the following manner whenever the need arises:

(i) Nadia Binti Othman (CLW1 / 1st Claimant);

(ii) Mohd Hamdi Bin Mohmad Zaini (CLW2 / 2nd Claimant);

[3] Further pursuant to the directions of this Court, the parties in this matter filed their respective submissions accordingly. This Court received the following written submissions of the parties namely the Company's written submissions dated 11 May 2023, the Claimant's written submissions dated 22 May 2023, the Company's written reply submissions dated 12 June 2023 and the Claimant's written submissions in reply dated 16 June 2023.

[4] This Court considered all the notes of proceedings in this matter, documents and the cause papers in handing down this Award namely:

(i) The respective Claimants' Statements of Case dated 21 February 2022 with the Annexure therein;

(ii) The Company's Statements in Reply dated 23 March 2022 with the Annexure therein;

(iii) The respective Claimants' Rejoinders dated 11 May 2022 and 24 August 2022;

(iv) The respective Claimants' Bundles of Documents - CLB1 and CLB2;

(v) The Company's Bundles of Documents - COB1, COB2, COB3, COB4, COB5 & COB6;

(vi) The 1st Claimant's Witness Statement - CLW1 - WS (Puan Nadiah Binti Othman;

(vii) The 2nd Claimant's Witness Statement - CLW2 - WS (Encik Mohd Hamdi Bin Mohmad Zaini);

(viii) Company's Witness Statement - COW1- WS(1) & COW1 - WS(2) - (Puan Maria Binti Mohammad);

(ix) Company's Witness Statement - COW2 - WS(1) & COW2- WS(2) - (Puan Zainab Ahmad Merican);

Introduction

[5] The dispute before this Court is the claim by Mohd Hamdi Bin Mohmad Zaini (The Claimant / 2nd Claimant) that he has been dismissed from his employment without just cause or excuse by GDP Interiors Sdn Bhd (Company) on the 10 December 2020.

[6] The Claimant commenced employment with the Company on the 18 July 2006 and was subsequently confirmed in his employment. The Claimant's last position in the Company was "Project Manager" and the last drawn salary at the time of his dismissal from employment was RM4,200.00 per month. The Claimant states that he was shocked to receive a termination letter from the Company on the 10 December 2020 wherein the Company has raised force majeure as its reason for terminating the Claimant from his employment. The Company contended that the force majeure was occasioned by the economic situation in the country resulting in the Company not have any further projects and this has left the Company with no choice but to shut down its operation temporarily. The Claimant however state that t

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