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

1986 MarsdenLR 469

INDUSTRIAL COURT, PULAU PINANG
ROOFTECH SDN BHD AND HO INN PENANG
[Case No: 14-173-85 (31.5.1986)]



(20.6.1986)

AWARD

1. The Claimant joined Sol Development Sdn. Bhd. as an Executive Director with effect from the 1st July 1982. About six or seven months afterwards he was transferred to Changgai Timber Sdn. Bhd., a subsidiary company of Sol Development Sdn. Bhd., where he remained for about five or six months. then he was transferred to a hardware shop known as Metalite Company also a subsidiary of Sol Development Sdn. Bhd. dealing in building materials. On or about the 1st of August 1984 he was finally transferred to the Company at Kuala Lumpur another subsidiary Company of Sol Development Sdn. Bhd. as a Sales Executive. By a resolution purportedly dated 1st August 1984, he ceased to be an Executive Director of Sol Development Sdn. Bhd. At the time of his dismissal, he earned a basic salary of $1,450.00 per month, a housing allowance of $1309.00 per month, and a travelling allowance of $400.00 per month.

2. It was contended on behalf of the Company that the Claimant's performance with Sol Development Sdn. Bhd. having left much to be desired he was accordingly and expressly engaged by the Company on probation. It was further contended on behalf of the Company that the Claimant did not in the period of probation vindicate himself as suitable material for the post as Sales Executive and accordingly was not confirmed in that post.

3. On the other hand it was contended by the Claimant that he was transferred to the Company on the 1st of August 1984 and by a clever and malicious design on the part of the Directors he was dismissed without just cause or excuse on the 8th of November 1984.

4. It was further contended by the claimant that no written inquiry was held and therefore this dismissal was in breach of the principles of natural justice.

5. Encik Ong Thim Kuang - (CW.1) - the Managing Director of Sol Development Sdn. Bhd. - giving evidence on behalf of the Company testified that before the Claimant joined Sol Development Sdn. Bhd. on the 1st of July 1982 he was with an Insurance Company for 13 years in Butterworth as Area Manager. As the Claimant was not happy working for the Insurance Company he was looking for a Job. He offered the Claimant a job on the basis that if one was successful in Insurance Sales it would not be difficult for one to do other sales. The Claimant was according to Encik Ong Thim Kuang - (CW.1) - appointed as an Executive Director of Sol Development Sdn. Bhd. which was a higher post than that of the General Manager as he was not prepared to work under the General Manager. Encik Ong Thim Kuang - (CW.1) - said that his duty as Executive Director in Sol Development Sdn. Bhd. was to do sales of houses which were located in its development projects in Tanah Merah and Pendek of Kelantan. Apart from his salary and allowances of $1,950.00 Sol Development Sdn. Bhd. agreed to pay him a commission of $2,000.00 for every unit he sold.

6. Encik Ong Thim Kuang - (CW.1) - said that the Claimant's performance was very poor. Although he was not given any target to achieve, during discussions it was agreed that he would sell 20 units of houses per month. But for the period of 6 or 7 months he was with Sol Development Sdn. Bhd., he sold not more than 5 units of houses.

7. Encik Ong Thim Kuang - (CW.1) - also said that because of his poor performance of his duty as a Sales Executive in Sol Development Sdn. Bhd., in order to give him a chance, about 6 or 7 months afterwards, he was transferred to be in charge of one of its subsidiary companies, namely, Changgai Timber. Changgai Timber was a Company which produced door and window frames and also carried out renovations. Here too, according to Encik Ong Thim Kuang - (CW.1) - he was found to be inexperienced and he did not bring in any sales. As far as he - (CW.1) - knew, the Claimant had not paid any visit to contractors or architects to sell the products of Changgai Timber.

8. Encik Ong Thim Kuang - (CW.1) - said that after about 4 or 5 months at Changgai Timber the Claimant was fur


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