The issue in this dispute is whether the claimant was dismissed on 19 March 1996 and if so, whether such dismissal amounted to a violation of the principles of natural justice effected without just cause or excuse. He was appointed as the administration manager of the company on 6 March 1995, at a monthly salary of RM4,500 on a clean wage basis, the company having agreed to pay on his behalf his EPF contributions and also his income tax dues or liabilities.

The pleadings and the evidence of the company, however, makes issue to the effect that the company is not liable to the claimant because he was not appointed by the Malaysian company, but by Sintat Rent-A-Car (Singapore) P/L. They aver, and evidence was adduced by the managing director, COW1, who incidentally is the MD of both the Singaporean and the Malaysian companies, that since the salaries of the claimant were remitted from Singapore every end of the month, (Exh. COA pp. 1 to 26), therefore this was proof enough that he was employed by the Singapore entity and not its counter part, the Malaysian company. COW1 testified and contended that the claimant was only the "representative" of Singapore to oversee its business operations in Malaysia.

On this preliminary issue, COW1 - although he denied that the company had agreed to bear all the claimant's EPF and tax deductions he did admit that for six months of claimant's appointment, the company had deducted the EPF contributions from claimant's salaries. Although the MD (COW1) explained that the deductions were an "oversight" by the accounts department, it does lend credence to the claim of the claimant that the company, as part of the arrangements to accord the claimant a clean wage, agreed to bear all the EPF or income tax liabilities. In fact, this was one of the attractions which influenced the claimant to abort his Canadian venture, in preference for this appointment with the company. If that was so, and the court will so hold, this arrangement to have the salary remissions from Singapore was purely a device - a subterfuge if one would prefer - in order to avoid payments to EPF or income tax all together, thus artificially fulfilling the company's commitment or promise to the effect that they will bear the claimant's liabilities and dues. The company need not pay the contributions in reality because there is no salary payments by the Malaysian company, but it will have fulfilled its promise and obligations to enable the claimant to get his clean-wage. The foregoing conclusion is borne by evidence that to the end no EPF was actually paid by the company to EPF Board, and it became one of the "sore" issues to the claimant vide his letter CLA10 to the company.

Having analysed and deduced why the salary remittances were made from Singapore, is the company's averment that the claimant was not employed by the Malaysian company correct? The court will agree and accept the claimant counsel's contention vide exhs. CLA - pp. 1, 2 and 4 that indeed the claimant was employed by the Malaysian company that is the correct legal stand-point, the evidence of salary remittances from Singapore being not the "proof" of employment but really as part of the arrangements or device in form only that they will "pay" the claimant's EPF or tax deductions.

The company is not allowed to say that if there are benefits to be derived, as indeed the claimant has been beneficial to the company during his tenure, the claimant is the "Administration Manager Malaysia" and if there are liabilities to be avoided, he is not an employee of the Malaysian company, but of Singapore. The court will look at the substance not the form. The claimant was de facto based and worked in the Malaysian company at Kuala Lumpur, and so it is liable to the claimant as his employer.

The next vital issue for the court to decide is whether there has been a dismissal, constructive or otherwise. The claimant in his pleadings and evidence testified that he was orally dismissed on 19 March