The court determined that the employment contract was a genuine fixed term contract, leading to the conclusion that no dismissal occurred upon its expiration.

AWARD

Paramalingam J Doraisamy:

Reference

[1] This is a reference made under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (Act 177), arising out of the dismissal of Yusof Bin Alavi (hereinafter referred to as the Claimant ) by Weber Meyer Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as the Company ) on 7 October 2021.

[2] The Ministerial reference in this case required the Court to hear and determine the Claimant s complaint of dismissal by the Company on 7th October 2021.

I. Procedural History

[3] The Court received the letter pertaining to the Ministerial reference under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 on 15th July 2022.

[4] The matter was fixed for mention on 23 August 2022, 12 October 2022, 2 November 2022, 27 March 2023, 8 May 2023, 15 May 2023, 8 June 2023, 13 June 2023, 17 July 2023 and 15 September 2023.

[5] The trial proceeded on 8th November 2023.

II. The Parties Position On The Merits

(a) The Claimant

[6] The Claimant was employed in the Company as a Senior Project Supervisor vide Offer of Employment dated 1 January 2020. The Claimant contends that his employment was on a permanent basis. At the time of his termination from employment, the Claimant s last drawn salary was approximately RM3,000.000 with fixed allowances amounting to RM500.00 per month.

[7] As a Senior Project Supervisor, the Claimant s duties and responsibilities, inter alia, was to supervise the implementation of various projects awarded to the Company.

[8] The Claimant contends that during his employment with the Company, he had performed his duties and responsibilities diligently and had a clean disciplinary record. However, vide letter dated 1 June 2021, the Company had given a notice terminating the Claimant s employment with immediate effect.

[9] The Claimant contends that his dismissal from employment was done without just cause or excuse and/or in breach of the principles of natural justice and/or an unfair labour practice.

(b) The Company

[10] The Claimant had been offered a contract of service dated 1 January 2020 with the Company as Senior Project Supervisor for a period of 1 year commencing from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2020.

[11] The Claimant s employment had ended naturally by way of effluxion of time on 31 December 2020. As the Claimant s employment contract had ended naturally, there was no obligation on the Company to extend or offer a new employment contract to the Claimant. The Company contends that the reason of non-renewal was due to the Claimant s poor performance, ie tardiness at work.

[12] However, the Claimant had pleaded with the Company to give him a further opportunity to keep his employment. At the Claimant s verbal request and the Company s kind indulgence, the Claimant was stationed with Asia Food Ventures Sdn Bhd ( AFV ) that runs a cafe (the Cafe) to assist the Cafe in any day-to day duties and tasks assigned by the Cafe on a monthly wages basis.

[13] Despite being given the opportunity to redeem himself, the Claimant kept on coming late to work and was very tardy in discharging his duties. After much deliberation and despite all verbal warnings and reprimands given to him, the Claimant remained unchanged and absconded from work leaving the Company with no choice but to not renew or offer the Claimant a new employment contract.

[14] The Company issued notice titled Temporary Closure of Business Operation From June 2021 dated 1 June 2021 to thank the Claimant for his services in the Company and in the Cafe and also to inform the Claimant that the Company did not intend to renew his employment contract or to offer him a new employment contract and the Claimant was no longer required to continue his monthly wage earning duties with the Cafe.

[15] It is the Company s contention that the Claimant s employment contract had ended naturally due to effluxion of time on 31 December 2020.

III. The Role Of The Industrial Court

[16] In a case involving fixed term contracts, the Industrial Court has to determine:

(i) whether or not the employmen