Arifin Zakaria JCA:

Sometime in 1997 the appellant was offered employment as the Bendahari (Treasurer) of the respondent for a term of one year. She accepted the offer and commenced work on 16 July 1997. In the purported exercise of its contractual right the respondent sought to terminate the appellant's employment pursuant to cl. 9 of the contract giving the appellant three months notice with effect from 12 September 1997. However, before the expiry of the said period, on 2 October 1997, following the meeting of its Disciplinary Board, the respondent terminated the appellant's employment by giving her 24 hours notice with one month's salary. The appellant was dissatisfied with the said termination and commenced this action against the respondent asking,inter alia, for the following reliefs:

(a) a declaration that the said termination is null and void and the appellant is still in the employment of the respondent;

(b) arrears of salary; and

(c) damages.

The learned High Court Judge dismissed the claim with costs and hence this appeal. We heard this appeal on 20 September 2004 and dismissed the same with costs and ordered that the deposit be paid to the respondent in full satisfaction of costs. We now give our reasons for the said decision.

The learned High Court Judge in his brief grounds of judgment summarised his reasons as follows:

Saya berpendapat bahawa pekerjaan Plaintif dengan Defendan adalah pada asas kontrak. Walaupun ada rujukan kepada Lembaga Tatatertib dalam notis kedua, ianya adalah mengenai penamatan kerja dan bukan buang kerja. Oleh itu Plaintif tidak perlu diberi peluang untuk membela diri atas apa-apa masalah yang dikatakan ditimbul oleh Plaintif itu. Dengan itu, saya berpuashati bahawa penamatan kerja Plaintif telah dibuat mengikut Klausa 9 Perjanjian itu.

In the memorandum of appeal the appellant alleged that the dismissal of the claim by the learned judge was contrary to the evidence and facts before him. That was the only ground advanced in this appeal.

The respondent here is a Local Authority established under the Local Government Act 1976. It is a body corporate having power to make appointment to such office as may be approved by the State Authority. The terms and conditions of service are to be determined by the respondent subject to the proviso that no officer or employee shall be reduced in rank or dismissed without being given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Before us the learned counsel for the appellant contended that based on the evidence presented the appellant was in fact dismissed on the ground of alleged indiscipline or insubordination. The dismissal, he contended, was cloaked under the guise of termination. He based his contention on the evidence of SD1 who stated, inter alia, that:

Notis-notis itu dikeluarkan mengikut Klausa 9. Notis pertama bercadang memberi 3 bulan notis. Selepas itu didapati Plaintif menimbulkan masalah kepada Defendan, maka notis yang kedua ini dikeluarkan. Dalam notis kedua ini ada disebut notis pertama terbatal. Tidak perlu disebutkan rujukan kepada Lembaga Tatatertib dalam notis kedua. Tujuan rujukan kepada Lembaga Tatatertib ialah sebagai "endorsement" untuk menamatkan kontrak Plaintif.

He also relied on the report entitled "Kertas Laporan Mengenai Tatakelakuan Cik Zakiah bt Ishak - Bendahari, Gred W3 Majlis Daerah Hulu Selangor" at p. 53 of Appeal Record (AR). On the above he contended the termination was in truth a dismissal tainted with bad faith in total disregard of natural justice. On that premise he submitted the termination was wrongful.

The short answer to this can be found in the terms and conditions of her employment. These are contained in the letter of offer dated 8 July 1997 which states clearly that the employment is on contract basis for a period of one year. Paragraph 3 of the letter also states that if the appellant agreed to accept the offer the appellant is required to execute a contract with the respondent on the d