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

1997 MarsdenLR 507

COURT OF APPEAL KUALA LUMPUR
ANWAR ABDUL RAHIM – Appellant
Versus
BAYER (M) SDN BHD – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: W-02-281-1995]



Petitioner Advocates:B Lobo ,Respondent Advocate: TM Varughese

JUDGMENT

Mahadev Shankar JCA:

1

[1] The appellant (Anwar) claimed that he had been constructively dismissed by the respondent (Bayer (M)). The Industrial Court upheld Anwar's claim.The High Court quashed the award of the Industrial Court.We dismissed Anwar's appeal to us. Our reasons now follow.

[2] Anwar first joined Bayer (M) in December 1975.He resigned of his own accord in June 1980.Subsequently he rejoined Bayer (M) in January 1981 as Senior Executive.From about 2 May 1984 Anwar became Bayer (M)'s Personnel and Administration Manager.Bayer (M) then decided to put up a factory in Shah Alam (the Shah Alam project). In 1986 Anwar was allocated duties in connection with the Shah Alam project as a Liaison Officer.He was sent to Germany for special training in this connection.Upon his return he continued to be responsible for this project.

[3] In 1989 Bayer (M)'s administrative offices were located on the 6th Floor of Pernas International at Jalan Sultan Ismail, Kuala Lumpur. T.S. Chee (Chee) was the Section Manager for the Diagnostic Division.On 1 June 1989 Mr. Herzer joined Bayer (M) as its Managing Director.Because there were serious space constraints in the Pernas International Building, Bayer (M) relocated its office to the MPSA Building in Shah Alam.Ho Toong Seng (Ho) was the Company Secretary.

[4] In August 1989 the Diagnostic Section of Bayer (M) took over the operations of its Singapore Company (Bayer (S)). The Diagnostic Division (DS) was upgraded as a business group with Bayer (M). Chee was made Business Group Manager of this Diagnostic Business Group.His staff increased by eight persons.Additional space was required for them and for demonstration of the Diagnostic equipment.

[5] On 17 October 1989 Mr. Herzer issued a memo countersigned by Ho addressed to both Chee and Anwar.It reads as follows Appeal Record p. 100:

Diagnostics division has been up-graded as a business group within Bayer Malaysia.

In August, DS also took over the Singapore operations.

Mr. Chee's present room (originally meant for section manager) is inadequate for him to function.

[6] We propose that M/s Chee and Anwar exchange their present rooms.

To avoid any disruption during normal office hours, we suggest the re-siting takes place on Saturday morning, that is 21 October 1989.

Mr. Chee's two other staff will also move into the admin. area.

[7] This memo was only a proposal.It was not an order.The 17 October was a Tuesday.Anwar asked for a discussion.This took place on 19 October (a Thursday) when Anwar asked for clarification of the memo.

[8] On 23 October 1989 (ie, the following Monday) Anwar wrote a letter to the Manager.It read as follows Appeal Record p. 61:

Dear Sir,

I refer to your memo dated 17th October, 1989 and the discussion with you on the 19th October, 1989 when I sought clarification on the contents of your memo.

In the light of what had transpired since your arrival in the company in June 1989, the contents of your memo is a clear indication that you want to drive me out of my employment for reasons best known to you. I am now convinced of this, in view of your suggestion that the company can pay me severance pay and "help" me to seek another job through a placement agency.

Under the circumstances I have no alternative but to consider myself dismissed by you with effect from today.

[9] Anwar handed this letter to Mr. Herzer's Secretary and walked out.

[10] In his Statement of Case Anwar stated Appeal Record p. 59:

3.1 By a memo dated 17th October 1989, the Claimant was asked to "exchange" rooms with another colleague one Mr. T.S. Chee.At the same time the Claimant was also relieved of his admin. functions.

The Claimant then sought and had a meeting with the company's Managing Director who made it clear that the company did not want to continue the employment relationship with the Claimant.

[11] In its Statement of Reply Bayer (M) said Appeal Record p. 62:

3. Para 3.1 of the Statement of Case is a distortion of facts and is denied except that the

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