The termination of employment must be supported by just cause and comply with statutory requirements under relevant industrial law.

[1] The appellant (employee) appeals against the decision of the High Court which had quashed the decision of the Industrial Court.

[2] The central argument before the High Court as well as the Industrial Court was related to the jurisprudence of 'termination simpliciter'. The Memorandum of Appeal reads as follows:

"1. The learned Judicial Commissioner erred in law and/or in fact in finding that the Industrial Court had acted irrationally and/or unreasonably in a Wednesbury sense and/or illegally and/or with procedural impropriety in arriving at its decision.

2. The learned Judicial Commissioner erred in law and/or in fact when His Lordship disturbed and/or interfered with the Industrial Court's findings of law and/or fact which found that the respondent had unlawfully terminated the appellant's employment.

3. The learned Judicial Commissioner erred in law and/or in fact when His Lordship disturbed and/or interfered with the Industrial Court's findings of law and/or fact which found that there was termination simpliciter.

4. The learned Judicial Commissioner erred in law and/or in fact by failing to find, or failing to uphold the Industrial Court's finding that, terminating the appellant's employment merely by giving notice, or paying in lieu thereof, without just cause or excuse, is a form of unlawful termination.

5. The learned Judicial Commissioner erred in law and/or in fact by:

5.1 incorrectly taking into account the respondent's purported grounds in making the Application for Judicial Review in the High Court, including the respondent's purported argument that the termination was justified:

5.1.1 as the respondent had provided the appellant contractual payment in lieu of notice of termination of employment; and/or

5.1.2 as there was a change of state government in Kedah.

5.2 incorrectly applying, or failing to apply, trite principles of law, including:

5:2.1 the laws in respect of when a decision of the Industrial Court is open to judicial review;

5.2.2 the laws in respect of termination of employment and/or termination simpliciter,

5.2.3 the laws in respect of fixed-term and permanent employment; and/or

5.2.4 principles and limitations of pleadings.

6. The learned Judicial Commissioner erred in law and/or in fact when His Lordship failed to appreciate that the Industrial Court had properly applied the facts and law in discharging its duty and discretion in finding that:

6.1 there was unlawful termination of the appellant's employment; and

6.2 the appellant was entitled to compensation for the same.

7. The learned Judicial Commissioner erred in law and/or in fact by failing to appreciate that the appellant was entitled to the sum awarded by the Industrial Court in its discretion, if not more.

8. The learned Judicial Commissioner erred in law and/or in fact by failing to appreciate that there were apparent and/or serious irregularities with the respondent's Application for Leave for Judicial Review and/or in the Application for Judicial Review."

Preliminaries

[3] It is now well established that 'termination simpliciter' a concept of common law is not part of industrial jurisprudence of Malaysia - under the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ( IRA 1967). The concept may be relevant in limited circumstances under the Employment Act 1955.

[4] Termination simpliciter relates to the absolute common law right of an employer to terminate the employee pursuant to the terms of the contract. This common law right has been arrested by virtue of s 20 of IRA 1967 which reads as follows:

"20.(1) Where a workman, irrespective of whether he is a member of a trade union of workmen or otherwise, considers that he has been dismissed wit