MAHENTHIRARAJA THANGAIAH vs AP TRAINING SDN BHD

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2013 MarsdenLR 488

INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
MAHENTHIRARAJA THANGAIAH – Appellant
Versus
AP TRAINING SDN BHD – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:V Aravindakshan ,Respondent Advocate: Peter Terence D'Cruz

Table of Content
1. references under industrial relations act (Para 1 , 1 , 2)
2. claimant's employment and termination details (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. company's representation and relationship with claimant (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. legal standards for determining dismissal (Para 15 , 16)
5. burden of proof on the claimant (Para 17)
6. court's observations on evidence and control (Para 18 , 19 , 20)

[1] This is a reference made under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 arising out of the alleged dismissal of Encik Mahenthiraraja a/l Thangaiah (hereinafter referred to as "The Claimant") by AP Training Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as "The Company") on 5 November 2007.

Introduction

[2] This is one of the case where parties refuse to talk to each other and to make the matter worse they choose to rely on a third party who were not part of the Company. Both the Claimant and the Managing Director (MD) of the Company are friend, sit in the same office but did not talk to each other for eight months. If only they could sit down and compromise, this matter should have been resolved amicably and friend would not became enemy.

Facts Of The Case

[3] The Claimant's case is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 MarsdenLR 488

INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPURMAHENTHIRARAJA THANGAIAH – AppellantVersusAP TRAINING SDN BHD – Respondent

Cases Referred (2)

INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
MAHENTHIRARAJA THANGAIAH – Appellant
Versus
AP TRAINING SDN BHD – Respondent