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

2003 MarsdenLR 1113

HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR

FAIZA TAMBY CHIK J


RUSLI LUWI
versus
RM TOP HOLDINGS SDN BHD

ORIGINATING MOTION NO: R2-25-53-2002

Decided On : 02-26-03

Advocates:
For the applicant - P Thavaselvi; M/s Zul Rafique & Partners
For the 1st respondent - S Balan; M/s Azman Joseph & Assoc
For the 2nd respondent - K Selvakumaran; M/s Md Tajuddin & Co

JUDGMENT

Faiza Tamby Chik J:

The application before this Honourable Court is for the following:

(a) An application for certiorari to move this Honourable Court to quash the Award of the Industrial Court in Industrial Court Case No. 11/4-485/99, ie, Award No. 229 of 2002 dated 23 March 2002;

(b) Such further and other orders which this Honourable Court deems fit; and

(c) Costs.

Briefly the facts of the case are as follows: The Applicant was appointed by the second respondent as its Operations Executive with effect from 2 September 1997. As the Operations Executive of the second respondent, the applicant was responsible to supervise the second respondent's projects. At the time of his appointment, the second respondent was involved in a project known as the External Window Cleaning Project at KLCC (& quot;the said project& quot;). In view of the said project, the second respondent had sent the applicant to Houston, Texas for a two week building maintenance course from 18 September 1997 to 28 September 1997 (& quot;the said training& quot;). Prior to leaving for the said training, the applicant entered into an agreement to serve the second respondent, in respect of the knowledge acquired from the said training, for a minimum period of three (3) years on completion of the said training. The applicant was sent to Houston, Texas for the said training together with three (3) Operation Supervisors and returned upon completion of the said training on 30 September 1997. Upon his return, the applicant contacted his immediate superior, the Human Resource Manager, Major (Rtd) Ismail (& quot;Major (Rtd) Ismail Abas& quot;) and was introduced by him to report for duty on 2 October 1997 at the second respondent's Head Office at Kelana Jaya. On 2 October 1997, the applicant together with the three (3) Supervisors reported for duty at the second respondent and attended a brief meeting at the office of Major (Rtd) Ismail Abas in the presence of Capt. (Rtd) Ismail Adam, the Administration Manager of the first respondent (& quot;Capt. Ismail Adam& quot;). In this meeting, Major (Rtd) Ismail Abas informed the applicant that the said project had been taken over by the first respondent and that the services of the applicant and that of the three (3) supervisors had been transferred to the first respondent. When the applicant expressed his dissatisfaction about the instruction to transfer to the first respondent, both Major (Rtd) Ismail Abas and Capt. (Rtd) Ismail Adam assured him not to worry as both the management of the second respondent and the first respondent agreed to the said transfer. The applicant was further assured that the first respondent would issue a new letter of appointment, on it's letter head based on the applicant's existing terms and conditions with the second respondent. The applicant was then instructed to report for duty at the first respondent's site office on 6 October 1997 and to report to Capt. Ismail Adam. The applicant did not tender a letter of resignation to the second respondent nor was he instructed to do so. The applicant reported for duty at the first respondent site office at KLCC on 6 October 1997 together with the three (3) supervisors and reported to Capt. (Rtd) Ismail Adam. Capt. (Rtd) Ismail Adam officially announced the transfer from the second respondent to the first respondent (pp. 33 to 34 of exh. RBL5 attached to encl. 3). Capt. (Rtd) Ismail Adam then introduced the applicant to Tuan Hj. Azman Md. Top, the Director of the first respondent and the Chief Operations Manager of the said project (& quot;COW2& quot;). Pursuant to the introduction session, COW2 held a short briefing in respect of the status of the said project and its workforce which was insufficient at that material time. COW2 informed that the said project had yet to commence as there was no approval from the Management of KLCC. He then instructed the applicant to analyse the structure of KLCC as well as the techniques to clean the said buil

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top