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

2025 MarsdenLR 719

INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
FRANKIE RIDZAL – Appellant
Versus
INDADI UTAMA (M) SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 233 of 2025 [Case No: 12(5)/4-332/23]



Petitioner Advocates:William Liow Teik Foong ,Respondent Advocate: T Ananthasivam

The court established that constructive dismissal requires proof of significant breach by the employer, which the claimant failed to demonstrate, leading to the dismissal of his claim.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20(3) - Constructive dismissal - Claimant alleged constructive dismissal due to removal of responsibilities and appointment of new directors - Court found no significant breach of contract by the Company, as the Claimant failed to prove his allegations and continued to receive full salary and benefits - Claimant's actions indicated an attempt to manipulate circumstances leading to his resignation - Claim dismissed. (Paras 32, 33, 44, 101, 102)

(B) Constructive Dismissal - The test for constructive dismissal is whether the employer's conduct constitutes a significant breach going to the root of the contract - The Claimant must provide sufficient notice of the breach and allow the employer time to rectify it - The Claimant failed to do so, resigning shortly after raising concerns. (Paras 33, 35, 87, 92)

Facts of the case:
The Claimant, an Indonesian citizen, was employed as a Director by the Company since 2008. He claimed constructive dismissal after the appointment of new directors and alleged marginalization. The Company contended that the Claimant was not dismissed and that his resignation was voluntary. (Paras 3, 4, 5, 13)

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the Claimant did not establish a significant breach of contract by the Company and that he had not been constructively dismissed. (Paras 101, 102)

Issues: Whether the Company was guilty of conduct that constituted a significant breach of the employment contract justifying the Claimant's resignation. (Paras 42, 43)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the Claimant failed to prove that the Company breached any fundamental terms of his employment contract, and his resignation was not justified as constructive dismissal. (Paras 101, 102)

Result: Claim dismissed.

AWARD

Chow Siew Lin:

A. Reference

[1] This is a reference from the Director General of Industrial Relations Malaysia pursuant to s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ("the Act") in respect of the dismissal of Frankie Ridzal ("the Claimant") by Indadi Utama (M) Sdn Bhd ("the Company") on 19 January 2022.

[2] This Court had considered all the notes of proceedings, documents, cause papers, submissions and bundles of authorities in handing down this Award namely:

(i) The Claimant's Statement of Case dated 27 March 2023 ("SOC");

(ii) The Company's Statement in Reply dated 14 April 2023 ("SIR");

(iii) The Claimant's Rejoinder dated 8 May 2023 ("Rejoinder")

(iv) The Claimant's Bundle of Documents ("CLB-1");

(v) The Claimant's Bundle of Documents (Additional) ("CLB-2");

(vi) The Claimant's Bundle of Documents (Additional Bundle 2) ("CLB-3");

(vii) The Claimant's Bundle of Documents (Additional Bundle 3) ("CLB-4");

(viii) Company's Bundle of Documents No 1 ("COB-1");

(ix) Company's Bundle of Documents (Additional) ("COB-2");

(x) Claimant's Witness Statement (Frankie Ridzal) dated 24 July 2024 ("CLWS-1");

(xi) Claimant's Witness Statement (Kwah Peng Kun, Wilson) dated 23 August 2024 ("CLWS-2");

(xii) Company's Witness Statement (Mak Kok Hay) dated 12 September 2024 ("COWS-1A");

(xiii) Company's Supplementary Witness Statement (Mak Kok Hay) dated 12 September 2024 ("COWS-1B");

(xiv) The Claimant's Written Submission dated 29 October 2024 ("Claimant's Submission") and Bundle of Authorities ("CL BOA");

(xv) The Claimant's Written Submission in Reply dated 5 November 2024 ("Claimant's Reply");

(xvi) The Company's Written Submission dated 29 October 2024 ("Company's Submission") and Bundle of Authorities ("CO BOA"); and

(xvii) The Company's Submissions in Reply dated 5 November 2024 ("Company's Reply").

B. Brief Facts

[3] The Company is a company incorporated under the laws of Malaysia. The Claimant is an Indonesian Citizen of full age.

[4] The Claimant had pleaded that he first began his employment with the Company on 11 May 2001. His last-held position was Director.

[5] The Claimant had tendered a letter of resignation dated 17 January 2022, which was addressed to the Board of Directors and sent to the Company on 19 January 2022, claiming constructive dismissal.

C. The Claimant's Pleaded Case

[6] The Claimant pleaded in his SOC, inter alia, that the Claimant joined the Company on 11 May 2001 vide an Employment Agreement signed by one Toh May Fook who was the Managing Director at that time and carrying a salary of RM5,000.00 per month. The Claimant further pleaded that:

(a) On 1 April 2004 a letter of appointment signed by the Managing Director Toh May Fook appointed the Claimant in continuation as a Country Manager at a basic salary of RM5,500.00.

(b) On 24 July 2006 the said Claimant was then promoted to "Regional Manager" and was given an increase in pay. The salary was increased to RM10,000.00 per month as basic salary.

(c) On 15 August 2008 by a letter of appointment the Claimant was appointed a Director of the Company. The remuneration came to RM17,990.00 per month.

(d) On 13 September 2012 the said Claimant's salary was increased to RM25,016.00 as a Director per month as basic salary.

(e) On 12 October 2020 Claimant's salary as Director was increased to RM47,004.00 per month as basic salary plus allowance of RM7,000.00 per month.

(f) The Claimant was the Founding Director of the Company.

(g) The Company has never issued any warning letter by the shareholders or anyone in authority. Neither the shareholders nor anyone in authority had ever complained about any issue or problem they faced with the Claimant.

[7] In paras 18 to 23 of the SOC, the Claimant had pleaded that the appointment of new directors was without following procedure:

(a) On 10 December 2021 Messrs Ranjit Ooi & Robert Low sent a letter to the Claimant and Norliza binti Zainor ("Norliza") (existing Director) stating there is a reconstitution of the Board of Directors in the Company.

(b) On 13 D

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 Back to top