Back
2025 MarsdenLR 3234
INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
TUAN NOOR AZLINA TUAN MAT – Appellant
Versus
HANDAL IMRO SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 588 Of 2025 [Case No: 4/4-270/24]
The court established that the dismissal of an employee must be justified by the employer, and failure to provide evidence for dismissal results in a finding of unjust termination.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20(3) - Dismissal without just cause or excuse - Claimant dismissed after refusal to sign Independent Contractor Agreement - Company alleges resignation - Burden of proof lies with the Company to prove just cause for dismissal - Court finds dismissal unjust and without cause. (Paras 12, 34, 35)
(B) Burden of proof - Employer must prove misconduct for dismissal; if dismissal is disputed, employee must prove dismissal occurred - Claimant established she was dismissed, not resigned. (Paras 15, 17, 19)
Facts of the case:
The Claimant, employed since 2013, was dismissed by the Company after refusing to sign an Independent Contractor Agreement on 4 July 2023. The Company claimed she resigned on 20 April 2023, but the Claimant argued she was dismissed without cause. (Paras 5, 6, 8)
Findings of Court:
The Claimant was dismissed without just cause or excuse; the Company failed to provide evidence supporting its claim of resignation. The dismissal was conducted in an unjust manner. (Paras 34, 35)
Issues: Whether the Claimant was dismissed or resigned; whether the dismissal was justified. (Paras 20, 34)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled the Company did not meet its burden of proof to show just cause for dismissal, and the Claimant successfully proved she was dismissed. (Paras 34, 35)
Result: The Company is ordered to pay the Claimant RM261,000.00 as compensation and back wages. (Para 47)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. reference and submissions filed (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. claimant's employment history and dismissal (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. summary of claimant and company's cases (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. role of industrial court in dismissal cases (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. burden of proof in dismissal cases (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. evaluation of evidence and findings (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 7. legal principles regarding resignation (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 8. conclusion on claimant's dismissal (Para 33 , 34) |
| 9. remedy for unjust dismissal (Para 35 , 36) |
| 10. final order and compensation (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 46) |
Reference
[1] This is a reference dated 12 March 2024 by the Director General of the Department of Industrial Relations, Ministry of Human Resources pursuant to s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ("The Act") arising out of the alleged dismissal of Tuan Noor Azlina Tuan Mat (Claimant) by Handal Imro Sdn Bhd (Company) on the 4 July 2023.
[2] Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the parties in this matter filed their respective submissions dated 13 February 2025 (Claimant's written submissions), 13 February 2025 (Company's written submissions), 26 February 2025 (Claimant's written submissions in reply) and 26 February 2025 (Company's written submissions in reply).
[3] This Court considered all the notes of proceedings in this matter, documents and cause papers in handing down this Award namely:
(i) The Claimant's Statement of Case dated 13 May 2024;
(ii) The Company's Statement in Reply dated 18 June 2024;
(iii) The Claimant's Rejoinder dated 3 July 2024;
(iv) The Claimant's Bundles of Documents - CLB1, CLB2, CLB3 & CLB4;
(v) The Company's Bundles of Documents - COB1 & COB2;
(v) The Claimant's Witness Statement - CLW1-WS (Tuan Noor Azlina Tuan Mat); and
(vii) The Company's Witness statement - COW1-WS (Mr William H Van Vliet III);
Introduction
[4] The dispute before this Court relates to the claim by Tuan Noor Azlina Tuan Mat ("Claimant") that she was dismissed from her employment with the Company without just cause or excuse by Handal iMRO Sdn Bhd ("the Company") on the 4 July 2023.
[5] The Company is involved in the business of oil and gas. The Claimant commenced employment with related companies on the 24 July 2013 and was transferred to the Company effective 1 January 2022 without any change to her salary, years of service, her status as a confirmed employee and the benefits she enjoyed. The Claimant's last held position in the Company was Accounts Payable Lead and her job scope was related to the managing the accounts of the Company. The Claimant's last drawn salary was RM8,700.00 per month.
[6] The Claimant states that on the 20 April 2023, the Claimant tendered her resignation letter with a one month's notice to the Company but due to the Company's request for the Claimant to reconsider her resignation, the Claimant and the Company reached an agreement for the Claimant continued with her employment with the Company which the Claimant did. However on the 4 July 2023, the Claimant was asked to sign an Independent Contractor Agreement (ICA) that will change her status as a confirmed employee of the Company which the Claimant refused to sign.
[7] Due to the Claimant's refusal to sign the ICA, the Claimant alleges that she was dismissed from her employment on the 4 July 2023. As the Claimant did nothing wrong, the Claimant now alleges that the conduct of the Company in dismissing her from her employment was done without just cause or excuse and now prays that she be reinstated to her former position in the Company without any loss wages and other benefits.
[8] The Company however denies that it had dismissed the Claimant from her employment and maintains that the Claimant had tendered her resignation letter on the 20 April 2023 and was in the meantime serving her notice period with an extension of the said notice period to assist the Company that was facing some administrative a
