Learned counsel for the claimant however submits that while it is the right of the employer to close down the whole or any part of his business such closure must be real and bona fide. Referring to the case of Palace Garment Manufacturing Sdn Bhd Penang v. Prai Textile & Garment Industry Employees Union (Award 132 of 1983), he contends that where there is no real closure but a mere pretence of a closure, or it is mala fide, then the court ought to intervene. Learned counsel for the claimant contends that in the instant case there was in the eyes of the law no real closure of the WBP corporate business development division because the functions of the division are being carried out in the company by COW1 and other officers in the respective companies in the group. He also cites the case of Aluminium Co. Bhd. v. Mustapha Talip (Award 171/87) wherein the court held that if an employee's position is made redundant but his duties and functions remained and were carried out by others in the company, the inevitable conclusion is that the employee's job was still in existence after his retrenchment. His termination was held to be without just cause or excuse.

In this case, though the divisi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document