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

2021 MarsdenLR 571

INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
KONG MEI FEI – Appellant
Versus
DAEHAN REHABILITATION SERVICES SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 1332 of 2021 [Case No: 4/4-2111/20]



A dismissal under a fixed-term contract without just cause or excuse requires compensation for the unexpired term, affirming employee rights under the Industrial Relations Act.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 – Section 20 – Dismissal without just cause or excuse – The claimant was terminated without proper justification or warning, contravening the principles of the Industrial Relations Act. The company failed to prove that the dismissal was with just cause or excuse. (Paras 68, 78)

(B) Burden of Proof – The burden lies with the employer to prove just cause for dismissal, and failure to do so results in a finding of unlawful dismissal. (Paras 11, 42)

(C) Fixed-Term Contract – Termination of a fixed-term contract without cause results in entitlement to back wages for the unexpired term, limited to a statutory cap. (Paras 70, 76)

Facts of the case: The claimant was employed under a fixed-term contract as Head of Project Planning, with a monthly salary of RM20,000. The company terminated the contract without valid reasons, citing financial difficulties, resulting in a dispute over the dismissal's validity.

Findings of Court: The dismissal was found unlawful, lacking just cause, and entitlement to compensation for the remaining contract period was established. The claimant's financial hardship and inability to secure new employment post-termination were acknowledged.

Issues: The legitimacy of the dismissal, the burden of proof, and the appropriate remedy for unlawful dismissal were central issues.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that dismissal must be justifiable under the Industrial Relations Act, and arbitrary termination of employment breaches employment rights. (Paras 49, 68)

Result: The company is ordered to pay the claimant RM120,000 in back wages. (Para 79)

AWARD

Augustine Anthony:

The Reference

[1] This is a reference dated 8 September 2020 by the honourable Minister of Human Resources pursuant to s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ("The Act") arising out of the dismissal of Kong Mei Fei ("claimant") by Daehan Rehabilitation Services Sdn Bhd ("company") on 24 June 2020.

[2] The parties in this matter filed their Written Submissions dated 1 June 2021 (company's Written Submissions), 1 June 2021 (claimant's Written Submissions), 8 June 2021 (company's Reply Submissions) and 8 June 2021 (claimant's Reply Submissions).

[3] This court considered all the notes of proceedings in this matter, documents and the cause papers in handing down this Award namely:

(i) The claimant's Statement of Case dated 3 November 2020 and the enclosures therein namely Fixed-term Contract of Employment dated 12 December 2019, Termination of Contract dated 25 March 2020 & Salary Slips for January - June 2020;

(ii) The company's Statement in Reply dated 17 November 2020 and the enclosures therein namely Appendix 1 -10;

(iii) company's Witness Statement (Pathmarajah A/L S.Nadarajah) marked as "COW1-WS";

(iv) company's Witness Statement (Vivien Mak) - Witness not called to give evidence. This witness statement unmarked and not considered as evidence by this court;

(v) claimant's Witness Statement marked as "CLW-WS".

Introduction

[4] By a fixed-term contract of employment dated 12 December 2019, the company appointed the claimant as the Head, Project Planning for a period of one year commencing from the 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2020. The claimant's monthly salary per month was RM20,000.00 for the duration of the fixed-term contract of employment. On 25 March 2020 the company issued the claimant a notice of termination of contract of employment pursuant to cl 17 (b) of the fixed-term contract of employment dated 12 December 2019 which states that "Your employment with us may be terminated by either party at anytime by giving to the other a three months prior written notice or payment in lieu of notice". The claimant states that the company had no valid reasons for issuing the termination notice thus terminating the claimant's employment and states that it amounted to a dismissal without just cause or excuse. The claimant now prays that he be reinstated to his former position without any loss of wages or other benefits. The company on the other hand contends that the company was facing severe financial difficulties and as such the company complied with cl 17(b) which entitled the company to terminate the employment contract of the claimant by giving the claimant three months' notice which the claimant consented and accepted. The company now states that the dismissal of the claimant was with just cause or excuse and prays that the claimant's case be dismissed.

[5] The claimant acted in person, gave evidence under oath and remained the sole witness for his case. The company's evidence was led by COW1 (Pathmarajah A/L S Nadarajah who gave evidence on the circumstances of the alleged resignation of the claimant).

The Claimant's Case

[6] The claimant's case can be summarised as follows:

(i) The claimant was appointed to the position of Head of Project Planning of the company on 19 December 2020. The claimant admits that this appointment was a renewal of his previous fixed- term contract of employment.

(ii) The appointment of the claimant was on a fixed-term one-year contract of employment which commenced on 1 January 2020 and to expire 31 December 2020.

(iii) The claimant's salary was RM20,000.00 per month.

(iv) The claimant was assigned to the renovation and construction of Daehan Rehabilitation Hospital Putrajaya project at IOI Two Square, IOI Resort City, 62520 Putrajaya.

(v) The claimant had performed his duties satisfactorily at all times and had good rapport among top management staff and colleagues.

(vi) On 26 March 2020 the claimant was called up by the company's Chief Operating Officer, one Mr Michael Lim and the

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