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

2002 MarsdenLR 26

INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
AMPAC MARKETING SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
JULIUS J ANTHONYSAMY – Respondent


AWARD

The dispute is over the dismissal of the claimant by the company.

The claimant contends he had been dismissed without just cause and excuse.

At the outset of the hearing on 28 September 2001 the claimant and his counsel were presented. However the company was not represented by counsel. The company's marketing executive who was present asked the court to postpone the hearing but this was disallowed. The claimant's counsel then applied to proceed ex parte under s. 29(d) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") which application was allowed by the court.

The claimant gave evidence that he commenced employment with the company on 15 May 1996 as the marketing and sales manager. His basic salary was RM5,000 per month and he was also paid RM400 and RM300 monthly for transport and handphone allowances respectively. Subsequently in September 1996 he was confirmed. The claimant travelled locally and internationally to promote the company's products. In July 1997, the claimant submitted his claims for all the expenses incurred on the various business trips done for the company to Solomon Jacobson, the director of sales and marketing. The claim amounted to

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top