Back
2025 MarsdenLR 3469
INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
HASLINDA IDRIS – Appellant
Versus
SKY PARK PROPERTIES SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 1297 of 2025 [Case No 20/4-2562/21]
Retrenchment is lawful if executed in good faith and based on genuine redundancy; employers must prove actual redundancy and fair process.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20(3) - Dismissal on grounds of redundancy - Court assesses whether retrenchment was based on genuine redundancy, whether it was lawfully executed, and if it adhered to established principles of industrial jurisprudence. (Paras 27 and 41)
(B) The court upheld that retrenchment was justified due to the cessation of the construction division and outsourcing of functions to third-party consultants, in response to financial difficulties exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic. (Paras 46, 62, and 80)
(C) Claimant's plea for reinstatement was denied as her position was rendered redundant following organizational restructuring. (Paras 22, 53, and 80)
Facts of the case:
The claimant was dismissed by the company during a retrenchment exercise. She argued there was no redundancy or justified reason for her termination, as her job continued to exist. The company asserted that her role was genuinely redundant due to business restructuring. (Paras 7, 10, 22, and 62)
Findings of Court:
The company provided sufficient evidence to support its claim of genuine redundancy and that the retrenchment followed lawful procedures. (Paras 41, 62, and 80)
Issues: The court addressed whether the claimant’s role was genuinely redundant due to restructuring and whether the retrenchment process adhered to fair labor practices. (Paras 44 and 73)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a position can be rendered redundant where its duties are outsourced, establishing that the claimant's job ceased to be necessary following the restructuring. (Paras 72 and 80)
Result: The claimant's case is hereby dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. reference case details (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. claimant's case and employment history (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. company's defense and rationale for retrenchment (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 4. industrial court's role and standard of proof (Para 27 , 29 , 30) |
| 5. evaluation criteria for retrenchment fairness (Para 31 , 33 , 34 , 44) |
| 6. definition and principles of retrenchment (Para 35 , 36 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 7. burden of proof in redundancy cases (Para 41 , 42) |
| 8. determination of claimant's redundant role (Para 63 , 64 , 72) |
| 9. conclusions on retrenchment fairness and legality (Para 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 78 , 80) |
Reference
[1] This is a reference by the Director General of Industrial Relations Malaysia pursuant to s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ("The Act") arising out of dismissal of Haslinda Binti Idris ("the claimant") by Sky Park Properties Sdn Bhd ("the company") on 23 December 2020.
[2] The trial in this matter was jointly heard with the cases of Ng Tat Wei and Ruslaili binti Yusup against Eco Green City Sdn Bhd. All cases arose from the same retrenchment exercise involving companies within the MCT Berhad Group. While the evidence was heard together for efficiency, the court is handing down separate Awards in respect of each matter.
[3] This court in handing down this Award considered inter alia the following cause papers and/or documents:-
(i) Statement of Case dated 16 December 2021 (SOC);
(ii) Statement in Reply dated 11 April 2022 (SIR);
(iii) Rejoinder dated 20 May 2022 (Rejoinder);
(iv) Claimant's Bundles of Documents (CLB-3);
(v) Company's Bundle of Documents (COB-1, COB-2 & COB-3);
(vi) Witness Statement of Haslinda Binti Idris (CLWS-3);
(vii) Witness Statement of Apollo Bello Tanco (COWS-1);
(viii) Witness Statement of Muhammad Syafiq Soh Bin Abdullah (COWS-2);
(ix) Notes of Proceedings Vols 1-2;
(x) Claimant's Written Submission and Bundle of Authorities 1 & 2;
(xi) Company's Written Submission and Bundle of Authorities;
(xii) Company's Written Submission in Reply.
Claimant's Case
[4] The claimant pleaded that she commenced employment with MDP Studio Sdn Bhd as a Landscape Architect with effect from 9 January 2012 with a monthly basic salary of RM3,000.00. On 1 January 2016, she was transferred to the company with no changes to her position, seniority and terms and conditions of service.
[5] In 2019, the claimant was promoted as Senior Landscape Architect. Claimant was temporarily assigned to Customer Service Department on 22 June 2020 for a period of six (6) months.
[6] Claimant pleaded that as a Senior Landscape Architect, she reported to En Aznul Rizal Shahid, the Head of Architecture Department of the company and her duties and responsibilities (para 10 of the Statement of Case) as inter alia was as follows:
"(a) Responsible as Senior Landscape Architect cum Design Manager under Architecture/Design & Planning Department in MCT Berhad who owned the company.
(b) Managing project from design planning and schematic design until CC stage.
(c) Involving and participating in implementation stage and final completion of projects in the company.
(d) Assisting Project Director including in attending meetings, consultants' meetings, project consultant team and contractor's direct liaison.
(e) Solving and handling all designs, tender interview, contracts, site and constructions issues in projects under MCT Berhad which includes the company.
(f) Participating and assisting GBI for MCT Berhad projects which related to landscape.
(g) Adviser for Landscape Architecture design and technical.
(h) Managing events and design competition conducted by MCT Berhad which involved other agency such as Institute Lanscape Architect Malaysia (ILAM)."
[7] On 23 December 2020, claimant was handed a retrenchment letter terminating her services with immediate effect. She objected to the decision, sought clarification on the reasons and selection criteria, but received no re
