AWARD

The first claimant commenced employment with company as a draughtsman on 2 October 1989. At the time of his retrenchment on 7 August 1998 he was holding the position as senior fine artist and his last drawn salary was RM4,250 (after a pay cut from RM5,000).

The second claimant started working for the company on 23 February 1990. When she first started she was a general clerk. However at the time of her retrenchment on 7 August 1998, she was a project secretary attached to two architect assistants.

Both claimants claimed that their dismissals by way of retrenchment was based on unreasonable excuse, contrary to natural justice, without just cause and contrary to law. This is because the company has failed to comply with LIFO principle and the company has not acted in bona fide when deciding to retrench both of them.

The company in their statement of reply contended that the retrenchment of the claimants was justified because the company was affected by the economic downturn which the country was facing in the later part of 1997 and; that the principle of LIFO was not applicable to the claimants since they were the only employees in their respective designations.

The well settled pri