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

1998 MarsdenLR 1050

INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
TECHNICAL RESOURCES SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
YONG MENG CHUI – Respondent
[Award No. 622 Of 1998 5/4-631/97]



The dispute in this case is between Technical Resources Sdn. Bhd. (hereinafter to be referred as 'the company') and Yong Meng Chui (hereinafter to be known as 'the claimant') who alleged that she was summarily dismissed without any just cause or excuse and the dismissal was contrary to the principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience.

Both parties submitted their respective written submission to the court.

The claimant was first appointed by the company as an accounts assistant with effect from 4 January 1988 as in CO2 and when she was dismissed by the company on 1 July 1997 she was already being promoted as an office manager drawing the last drawn salary of RM2,000 per month. The claimant's letter of dismissal sent by the company's lawyer dated 1 July 1997 as at p. 1 in CO1 is appended below:

MANJIT SINGH SACHDEV, MOHAMMAD RADZI & PARTNERS

PEGUAMBELA & PEGUAMCARA ADVOCATE & SOLICITORS PESURUHJAYA SUMPAH COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS

(SUBANG JAYA BRANCH OFFICE) NO. 79-1, 1ST FLOOR, SS15/8A SUBANG JAYA, 47500 PETALING JAYA SELANGOR. TEL: 7319116, (Hunting Lines) FAX: 7311696

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL

OUR REF: MS/WWW/CCH/L0020/97 1st July 1997.

REGISTERED POST

YONG MENG CHUI No. 24, Jalan USJ 3/4C UEP Subang Jaya 47500 Petaling Jaya.

Dear Sir,

RE: TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT

We act as solicitors for Technical Resources Sdn. Bhd. with address at No. 4 & 4A, Block C, Lot 757, Prima Subang Light Industrial Park, Jalan Subang 6, Subang Jaya, 47500 Petaling Jaya, Selangor.

We are informed by our client that by a letter of appointment dated 4th January 1988, you have accepted our client's offer for appointment to the position of an Accounts Assistant upon the terms and conditions stated herein.

We are further informed by our client that you have consistantly breached the Company Rules by the following actions:-

(1) refusing to acknowledge the company circular dated 24th March 1997;

(2) refusing to record your daily attendance by the signing of an attendance sheet;

(3) absent from work since the 17th of June 1997 without approved leave and without the giving of any notice to our client.

Based on the above grounds, we are now instructed and we hereby do give you Notice that your employment with our client is hereby terminated.

Your faithfully,

Signed ...

c.c. YONG MENG CHUI No. 24, Jalan USJ 3/4C UEP Subang Jaya 47600 Petaling Jaya.

TECHNICAL RESOURCES SDN BHD NO. 4 & 4A, Block C Lot 757, Prima Subang Light Industrial Park Jalan Subang 6, Subang Jaya 47500 Petaling Jaya, Selangor.

The court would therefore determine whether the reasons propounded by the company as stated at p. 1 in CO1 in dismissing the claimant constituted just cause or excuse. There was no doubt that the company had dismissed the claimant.

In Goon Kwee Phoy v. J & P Coats (M) Bhd. [1981] 2 MLJ p. 129 by Raja Azlan Shah CJ as he then was had clearly stated at p. 136 with regard to the dismissal of an employee as follows:

We do not see any material difference between a termination of the contract of employment by due notice and a unilateral dismissal of a summary nature. The effect is the same and the result must be the same. Where representations are made and are referred to the Industrial court for enquiry, it is the duty of that court to determine whether the termination or dismissal is with or without just cause or excuse. If the employer chooses to give a reason for the action taken by him, the duty of the Industrial court will be to enquire whether that excuse or reason has or has not been made out. If it finds as a fact that it has not been proved, then the inevitable conclusion must be that the termination or dismissal was without just cause or excuse. The proper enquiry of the court is the reason advanced by it and that court or the High court cannot go into another reason not relied on by the employer or find one for it.

In a dismissal case as this one the burden of proof lies with the company. In the case of Stamford Executive Centre v. Puan Dharsini Ganesan [1986] 1 ILR February 101

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top