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

2023 MarsdenLR 1330

INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
NADIAH OTHMAN – Appellant
Versus
GDP INTERIORS SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 1580 Of 2023 [Case No: 4/4-43/22]



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

The dismissal of an employee must be justified with clear evidence; failure to prove just cause results in the dismissal being deemed unlawful.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20(3) - Dismissal without just cause or excuse - Claimant dismissed on grounds of force majeure due to economic situation - Court found that Company failed to prove justification for dismissal and acted in bad faith - Claimant entitled to compensation in lieu of reinstatement and backwages. (Paras 10, 30, 38, 48)

(B) Burden of Proof - Employer must prove just cause for dismissal; failure to do so results in dismissal being deemed without just cause. (Paras 12, 13)

(C) Redundancy and Retrenchment - Genuine redundancy must be established by the employer; mere assertion of financial loss is insufficient. (Paras 22, 26)

Facts of the case:
The Claimant was employed by the Company from 15 October 2012 until her dismissal on 23 December 2020, with her last drawn salary of RM2,800. The Company cited force majeure due to economic conditions as the reason for dismissal, which the Claimant contested as unfounded.

Findings of Court:
The Court found the Claimant was dismissed without just cause or excuse, as the Company failed to provide adequate justification for the termination.

Issues: The main issues were whether the dismissal was justified under the claim of force majeure and if proper procedures were followed in the termination.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the Company did not meet the burden of proof to justify the dismissal, and the reasons provided were insufficient and unsupported by evidence.

Result: The Company is ordered to pay the Claimant RM50,400.00 as compensation and backwages.

Table of Content
1. reference and procedural background of case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. claimant's dismissal details and claims. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 9)
3. role of industrial court in dismissal cases. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. law regarding force majeure and redundancy. (Para 18 , 22)
5. court's final order and compensation awarded. (Para 39)
Augustine Anthony:

The Reference

[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 NADIAH BINTI OTHMAN ("Claimant") by GDP INTERIORS SDN BHD ("Company") on the 23 December 2020.

[2] It was mutually agreed by all parties that the instant case be heard together with Case No: 4/4-44/22 (between Mohd Hamdi Bin Mohmad Zaini v. GDP Interiors Sdn Bhd). 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 Bt 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 Nadiah Binti Othman (The Claimant / 1st Claimant) that she has been dismissed from her employment without just cause or excuse by GDP Interiors Sdn Bhd (Company) on the 23 December 2020.

[6] The Claimant commenced employment with the Company on the 15 October 2012 and was subsequently confirmed in her employment. The Claimant's last position in the Company was "Interior Designer" and the last drawn salary at the time of her dismissal from employment was RM2,800.00 per month. The Claimant states that she was shocked to receive a termination letter from the Company on the 23 December 2020 wherein the Company has raised force majeure as its reason for terminating the Claimant from her 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 the Company still has ongoing projects and the excuse that the Company has no more projects are without basis. The Claimant now state that she was dismissed from her employment by the Company without just cause or excuse and prays that she be reinstated to her former position in the Company without any loss of wag

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