Back
2009 MarsdenLR 4807
HAPIPAH MONEL
DERGAHAYU SENDIRIAN BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
NG CHWEE KHING – Respondent
Employees on probation retain rights against unjust dismissal; termination without adequate cause or opportunity for improvement is unlawful.
Headnote:(A) Employment Law - Termination of Employment - The rights of an employee on probation are equal to those of a permanent employee, and termination requires just cause. The court referenced previous cases affirming that dismissal without valid reason is unlawful. (Paras 47-49)
(B) Evidence - The employer failed to substantiate claims regarding the employee's unsatisfactory performance with credible evidence. Relevant facts include the employee being terminated without prior warnings despite claims of poor performance. (Paras 34-45)
(C) Jurisdiction - The court asserted its jurisdiction to interfere in dismissal cases where termination is deemed discriminatory or without fair cause, regardless of probationary status. (Paras 50-52)
Facts of the case:
The claimant was employed as an Assistant to the Managing Director with a monthly salary. The employer terminated the claimant's employment claiming unsatisfactory performance without a valid explanation. The claimant contended that the termination was abrupt and lacked proper justification (Paras 3-12).
Findings of Court:
The court found that the termination lacked just cause and failed to follow fair practice, awarding the claimant a sum of RM21,250.00 as compensation. (Paras 55-59).
Issues: The core issues included whether the termination was justified under the governing law and whether the company provided adequate opportunities for improvement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that an employee, even on probation, must be afforded rights against arbitrary dismissal and the employer must provide evidence of performance issues. (Paras 49-51).
Result: The court ruled in favor of the claimant, and the sum of RM21,250.00 was awarded to be paid within 30 days.
Fakta Kes
Yang Menuntut dilantik untuk bekerja dengan Syarikat sebagai Pembantu Khas kepada Pengarah Urusan melalui surat bertarikh 20 Julai 2006 (ekshibit COB1 P 1-6) berkuatkuasa mulai 28 Ogos 2006. Gaji yang diterima oleh beliau sebanyak RM4,250 sebulan dengan tempoh percubaan selama 6 bulan.
Tugas Yang Menuntut telah diperuntukan di bawah klausa DUTIES dalam surat perlantikan bertarikh 20 Julai 2006 tersebut. Klausa tersebut berbunyi DUTIES:-
"You will be reguired to perform such duties in connection with the Company's function as may be assigned to you by appropriate department heads of the Company. During your employment with us, you will devote your full time and attention to your duties with the Company and you will not directly engage or be concerned or interested in other business or other from of employment of any kind whatsoever.
All matter becoming known to you through your employment in the Company will be held in strictest confidence by you even after your contract of service expires or terminates."
Melalui surat daripada Pengarah Urusan Syarikat bertarikh 15 Disember 2006 Yang Menuntut telah ditamatkan perkhidmatannya (muka surat 5 CLB1). Alasan yang diberikan adalah perlaksanaan tugas yang tidak memuaskan. Surat penamatan perkhidmatan tersebut berbunyi:-
"
DERGAHAYU SENDIRIAN BERHAD
WISMA DERGAHAYU LEVEL 4 & 5 NO. 26 JALAN INDAH 23
TAMAN CHERAS INDAH, 56000 KUALA LUMPUR
P.O. BOX 13118, 50800 KUALA LUMPUR
13 December 2006
Ng Chwee Khing
B-6-12 Shamelin Bestari Jalan 2/91A
Taman Shamelin Perkasa
56100 Kuala Lumpur
Dear Ms Ng,
RE: LETTER OF TERMINATION
We refer to the above matter.
We regret to inform you that due to your unsatisfactory work performance, your services are no longer required in our company. In view of that, you are herby being terminated immediately. You will be paid one week salary in lieu of notice in accordance to your appointment letter dated 20 July 2006.
Thank you.
Your faithfully,
DERGAHAYU SDN. BHD (22971-H)
NG SENG KEE
Maniging Director.
"
Kes Yang Menuntut
Yang Menuntut mendakwa penamatan perkhidmatannya telah dibuat dengan secara tiba-tiba dan di luar jangkaannya. Yang Menuntut dalam keterangannya telah menyatakan bahawa beliau telah diberikan tugas oleh Pengarah Urusan iaitu satu-satunya pegawai atasannya. Walaupun tugasnya itu memerlukan beliau berhubungan dengan Ketua-Ketua Jabatan tiada apa-apa dalam keterangan yang menunjukkan mana-mana Ketua Jabatan yang memberikan tugas kepada Yang Menuntut.
Penamatan perkhidmatan yang dibuat adalah secara tiba-tiba tanpa sebarang amaran ataupun penjelasan daripada pihak Syarikat. Ini jelas dilihat dalam keterangan di mana Yang Menuntut tidak diberikan apa-apa penjelasan mengenai penamatan perkhidmatannya dan beliau juga tidak berpeluang untuk bertanyakan kepada Pengarah Urusan tersebut mengenai penamatan perkhidmatan beliau itu. Yang Menuntut dalam pernyataannya menyatakan:-
"Q23: While you were so employed and attended to your work what happened on 15th December 2008?
A23: I was asked to meet the HR Executive, Jammie Ong who handed me a letter bearing the same date
Q24: Before you were handed this letter were you told of any reason why your employment was being teminated?
A24: No. I was not told anything or given any reason.
Q25: Did you not ask Jammie Ong the reason?
A25: He said he did not know but he was asked by the Managing Director to hand the letter to me.
Q26: Did you ask the Managing Director the reason?
A26: I could not because he had left for overseas the previous day."
Pengarah Urusan iaitu satu-satunya pegawai atasan Yang Menuntut yang boleh menjelaskan kepada Yang Menuntut mengapa beliau dibuang kerja. Walau bagaimanapun beliau telah berangkat ke luar negara sehari sebelum Yang Menuntut menerima surat penamatan perkhidmatanya.
Pihak Yang Menuntut mendakwa bahawa Syarikat sebenarnya bertindak demikian berdasarkan surat perlantikan di bawah klausa tempoh percubaan memperuntukkan bahawa:-
