Back
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
TAN SRI DATO WAN SIDEK WAN ABDUL RAHMAN – Appellant
Versus
RAHMAN HYDRAULIC TIN BERHAD – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the matter involves claims of constructive dismissal and lack of status as a workman. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of the appellant's appointment and related employment claims described. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. dispute over directorship status and subsequent claims. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. criteria for establishing constructive dismissal and valid employment contract. (Para 11 , 21 , 24 , 27) |
| 5. jurisdiction issues based on the definition of a workman. (Para 12 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. legal requirements for valid employment contracts and implications of breach. (Para 20 , 22 , 23) |
| 7. arguments around the validity of the service agreement based on directorship status. (Para 28 , 41 , 42) |
| 8. final ruling on validity of employment claims and appeal. (Para 53) |
Introduction
[1] The appellants claim at the Industrial Court is that he considered himself constructively dismissed by the respondent as at 18 January 2002 and that the respondent had breached the fundamental terms and conditions of his employment contract by not paying his claims and salaries from October 2000 until January 2002. The appellant applied for reinstatement under s 20 of the Industrial Relations
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
