Back
2025 MarsdenLR 2231
INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
LOW KOK LEONG – Appellant
Versus
A V-ECOPALMS SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 169 Of 2025 [Case No: 14/4-788/23]
The termination of employment was deemed unjustified due to lack of valid reasons and failure to follow due process, establishing the employer-employee relationship despite contractual ambiguities.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20(3) - Dismissal of employee - Claimant wrongfully terminated without just cause or excuse - Employment relationship established between Claimant and Company despite Company's claims to the contrary - The Company failed to provide valid reasons for termination and did not follow proper procedures, including prior warnings or inquiries. (Paras 6, 9, 56, 60)
(B) Employment Contract - The Employment Contract was deemed binding despite not naming the Company as the employer - The Company acted as the employer by paying salary and extending employment terms, establishing a clear employer-employee relationship. (Paras 23, 27, 48)
Facts of the case:
The Claimant was employed by the Company as a Senior Mill Finance Administrator and was wrongfully terminated without notice on 15 July 2022, despite a fixed-term contract ending on 6 January 2023. (Paras 3, 6, 9)
Findings of Court:
The Company was found to be the Claimant's employer and the termination was without just cause or excuse, leading to the Claimant being entitled to backwages and compensation. (Paras 56, 68)
Issues: Whether the Company was the Claimant's employer and whether the termination was justified. (Paras 20, 56)
Ratio Decidendi: The Company, despite its claims, was found to have established an employment relationship with the Claimant; the termination was deemed unjustified and not in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act. (Paras 60, 62)
Result: The Company is ordered to pay the Claimant RM108,416.00 as compensation. (Para 70)
AWARD
Reference
[1] This is a reference under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (the Act) by the Director General of Industrial Relations, emanates from the dismissal of Low Kok Leong ("the Claimant") by A V-Ecopalms Sdn Bhd ("the Company") on 15 July 2022.
Preamble
[2] This Court had considered the notes of proceedings and the following pleadings, evidence, documents and submissions in handing down this Award:
(i) Statement of Case dated 18 May 2023;
(ii) Statement In Reply dated 30 May 2023;
(iii) Rejoinder dated 7 June 2023;
(iv) Company's Bundle of Documents: COB-1;
(v) Company's Supplementary Bundle of Documents: COB-2;
(vi) Claimant's Bundle of Documents: CLB-1;
(vii) Claimant's Additional Bundle of Documents: CLB-2;
(viii) Claimant's Additional Bundle of Documents (2): CLB-3;
(ix) Witness Statement of Tan Hock Yew: COWS-1;
(x) Witness Statement of the Claimant, Low Kok Leong: CLWS-1;
(xi) The Company's Written Submission dated 7 October 2024;
(xii) The Claimant's Written Submission dated 7 October 2024;
(xiii) The Company's Written Submission In Reply dated 30 October 2024; and
(xiv) The Claimant's Written Submission In Reply dated 31 October 2024.
The Claimant's Case
[3] On 6 January 2019, the Claimant was employed by the Company as a Senior Mill Finance Administrator at Manuhing Palm Oil Mill, Kalimantan Tengah, Indonesia from 6 January 2019 to 5 January 2021 with a monthly salary of RM16,000.00.
[4] On 9 January 2021, the Company renewed the Employment Contract with the Claimant on the following terms:
(a) The term of employment is renewed for another two (2) years from 7 January 2021 to 6 January 2023; and
(b) The salary of the Claimant would be RM17,600.00
[5] On 13 May 2022, the Claimant was promoted to General Manager by the Company.
[6] On 15 July 2022, without any prior written notice or otherwise, the Company informed the Claimant that his employment is terminated from July 2022 onwards.
[7] At all material times, the Company had failed, refused and/or neglected to give any valid reasons, cause or excuse to the Claimant with respect to the termination.
[8] The Claimant averred that the Company had wrongfully terminated the Claimant's employment in which the particulars are as follows:
(a) The Company had failed to give any prior warning to the Claimant before the termination;
(b) The Company had failed to issue any letter to show cause against the Claimant before the termination;
(c) The Company had failed to carry out any domestic inquiry;
(d) The Company had failed to give any just cause or excuse to the Claimant with regard to the termination; and
(e) The Company had not terminated the Claimant's employment in accordance with the employment contract particularly cls 41 and 42.
[9] The Claimant has been terminated without just cause and excuse.
The Company's Case
[10] The Claimant has wrongfully filed this claim against the Company as the Company was never at any material time the employer of the Claimant.
[11] The fact is that at all material time the Claimant's employer was PT Berkala Maju Bersama (PT Berkala Maju) which is a foreign company incorporated in Indonesia.
[12] The Company is merely a shareholder in PT Berkala Maju.
[13] The Company avers that:
(a) The Company is not a party to the Employment Contract;
(b) The Employment Contract refers to the Claimant as the Expatriate Employee (EE);
(c) The Claimant and PT Berkala Maju had signed a Second Employment Contract (Second Contract); and
(d) Employment Contract was signed by the Claimant as employee and COW-1 for the employer in his capacity as "Direktur Utama".
[14] The Claimant was employed as Senior Mill Finance Administrator and stationed to work at PT Berkala Maju, Manuhing Palm Oil Mill, Kalimantan Tengah, Indonesia.
[15] The Company could never have been the Claimant's employer because the Company is merely an Investment Holding Company holding shares in PT Berkala Maju and does not own the mill in Indonesia.
[16] No provision for the respective statutory con
