The court established that a re-designation amounting to demotion constituted constructive dismissal, highlighting the employer's obligation to adhere to contractual obligations.

[1] This is an application by the applicant for judicial review pursuant to O 53 of the Rules of 2012, and for an order of certiorari to quash Chan Phaik Leng v. Meda Healthcare Sdn Bhd dated 19 September 2018 ("the Award") of the Industrial Court, the 1st respondent.

The Background Facts

[2] On 11 December 2000, the applicant commenced employment at Antah Pharma Sdn Bhd ("Antah") as a Medical Representative. She was then promoted to Senior Area Sales Manager on 1 January 2011.

[3] On 1 January 2016, after Meda Healthcare Sdn Bhd ("the 2nd respondent") had taken over the pharmaceutical business from Antah, the applicant continued as Senior Sales Manager ("SSM") based on a renewed employment contract dated 1 January 2016 ("the Contract").

[4] On 6 April 2016, the person whom the applicant reported to, Gan Kok Soon, Brian (referred to "COW2" in the Industrial Court) informed her of the complaints about her received from her subordinates, and of the 2nd respondents decision to transfer/re-designate her to the position of Key Account Manager ("KAM").

[5] On 7 April 2016, COW2 attached and sent vide email to the applicant, the key performance indicators ("KPIs") and other related details of the new role as KAM.

[6] Between 11 April 2016 and 17 May 2016, there were several emails exchanged between the applicant and Lau Chee Hoo, the Country Manager of the 2nd respondent (referred to as "COW1" in the Industrial Court), which concluded with the applicants resignation on 23 May 2016.

The Applicants Case

[7] The applicants case is that the re-designation had amounted to a demotion as it had reduced her rank, status and authority, and as a result of which she was dismissed constructively.

[8] She claims that the re-designation was not made in good faith and was meant to penalise her for complaints supposedly made about her by her subordinates.

[9] She therefore seeks the following reliefs:

a) An order of certiorari to quash the Award; and

b) A declaration that the applicant was dismissed without due cause or excuse, and to be reinstated to her position as SSM with no loss of pay, privileges or seniority; or

c) If reinstatement is not feasible, back wages and compensation in lieu of.

The 2nd Respondents Case

[10] The 2nd respondents case is that the re-designation was within the terms of the applicants contract and was due to genuine business reasons; and that the applicant had resigned on her own account and was, therefore, not entitled to any of abovementioned reliefs.

[11] Counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that in that conversation of 6 April 2016, COW2, as her supporting officer, was making an honest and fair assessment about the applicants strength and weaknesses, and that the re-designation was not meant to penalise her.

The Issues

[12] The main grounds for this application are follows:

a) That the learned Industrial Court Judge ("ICJ") had erred in law when she decided that the claimant was not constructively dismissed; and

b) That the learned ICJ had erred in law when she decided that the dismissal was with just cause and excuse.

Contentions And Findings

The Law On Judicial Review

[13] In the landmark House of Lords case of Council of Civil Service Union v. Minister of Civil Service [1985] AC 374, the grounds of illegality and irrationality which form the basis of reviewing the decision of the learned ICJ in the present case, were expounded by Lord Diplock at p 410, in the following words:

"... By "illegality" as a ground for judicial review,