Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 MarsdenLR 2734

INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
PARIMALA BALASINGAM – Appellant
Versus
MONASH UNIVERSITY MALAYSIA SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 814 of 2025 [Case No: 5/4-1448/20]

Petitioner Advocates:Alex De Silva,Jessica Chew Harn Wei ,Respondent Advocate: Vijayan Venugopal,Jamie Goh Moon Hoong,Peter Halach Santiago

The court established that a voluntary acceptance of a Mutual Exit Package constitutes mutual termination rather than dismissal, placing the burden of proof on the claimant to demonstrate otherwise.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20(3) - Reference arising from alleged dismissal by employer - Claim of constructive dismissal rejected - Employment ceased by mutual agreement through acceptance of Mutual Exit Package (MEP), supported by clear evidence of voluntary decision-making by Claimant. (Paras 19, 40, 64)

(B) Burden of Proof - In cases of disputed dismissal, the burden lies on the employee to prove dismissal occurred; failure to do so results in the employer's position upheld. (Paras 20, 67)

(C) Employment Practices - Procedural shortcomings noted in restructuring process; however, unilateral acceptance of MEP by Claimant treated as valid mutual termination, not dismissal. (Paras 63, 64)

Facts of the case:
The case involved a claim by the Claimant against her former employer regarding an alleged unfair dismissal, which the employer contested, asserting mutual agreement for the Claimant's departure through the acceptance of an MEP. (Paras 17, 30) Findings of the Court: The Court found no evidence of coercion, affirming that the Claimant voluntarily accepted the MEP, and concluded that the dismissal allegation was unsupported both factually and legally. (Paras 40, 64)

Issues: The key issues were whether a dismissal had occurred and, if so, whether it was with or without cause. (Paras 22, 43)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that mutual termination could not be construed as dismissal when entered into voluntarily and legitimately without coercion; the Claimant failed to prove her claims of forced resignation. (Paras 41, 64)

Result: The Claimant's case is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. reference for alleged unfair dismissal (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. details of the company's restructuring process (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. claimant's employment details (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
4. claimant alleges forced acceptance of exit package (Para 17 , 18)
5. burden of proof regarding dismissal (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
6. claimant's contention of lack of alternatives (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
7. company's defense against allegations of coercion (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
8. court's finding on claimant's allegations (Para 39 , 40 , 41)
9. claimant's arguments about restructuring fairness (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51)
10. company's justification of hr restructuring (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55)
11. court's evaluation on managerial prerogative (Para 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61)
12. court's observations on process deficiencies (Para 62 , 63)
13. court's ultimate conclusion on dismissal (Para 64 , 65 , 66)

Noramilia Mohd Saad:

Reference

[1] This matter arises from a reference made by the Honourable Minister of Human Resources pursuant to s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 [Act 177] arising out of the alleged dismissal of Parimala A/P Balasingam ("the Claimant"), by Monash University Malaysia Sdn Bhd ("the Company"). The reference was made on 5 July 2020.

Background

[2] This case was previously tried and concluded by the former Chairman of Court 5, Yang Arif Tuan Ahmad Zakhi Bin Mohd Daud, who has since retired from the Industrial Court. I have been requested to prepare and deliver the Award for this case. Therefore, this Award is written based on my reading, perusal, and evaluation of the facts and evidence contained in the notes of proceedings prepared by the former Chairman and from the documents made available to me.

[3] There are six (6) Claimants who claimed unfair dismissal against the Company, in which the matters were heard together, in which the facts were identical, and the issues to be tried were also similar. The details of the Claimants and their case number are as follows:

[4] In handing down this Award, the following were considered by the Court:

(a) the record of proceedings;

(b) the notes of proceedings prepared by the former Chairman;

(d) Statement in Reply dated 23 February 2021;

(e) Rejoinder dated 9 April 2021;

(f) Claimant's Bundle of Documents marked as CLB-P1;

(g) Claimant's Supplementary Bundle of Documents (Vol 1) marked as CLB-P2;

(h) Claimant's Supplementary Bundle of Documents (Vol 2) marked as CLB-P3;

(i) Company's Bundle of Documents marked as COB-P1;

(j) Company's Supplementary Bundle of Documents marked as COB-2;

(k) Company's Bundle of Documents (3) marked as COB-3;

(l) Company's HR Staff List marked as COB-4;

(m) Claimant's Common Bundle marked as CLB-5;

(n) Claimant's Witness Statement (Parimala A/P Balasingam) marked as CLWS-P1;

(o) Claimant's Supplementary Witness Statement (Parimala A/P Balasingam) marked as CLWS-P2;

(p) Company's Witness Statement (Janice Wong Yoke Chen) marked as COW-1S;

(q) Claimant's Written Submission dated 11 November 2024;

(r) Claimant's Bundle of Authorities dated 11 November 2024;

(s) Claimant's Reply Submissions dated 25 February 2025;

(t) Company's Written Submissions dated 11 November 2024;

(u) Company's Bundle of Authorities dated 11 November 2024;

(v) Company's Written Submissions in Reply dated 3 February 2025; and

(w) Company's Supplementary Bundle of Authorities dated 3 February 2025.

[5] All the Claimants testified in their case. Whilst the Company called 1 witness, COW-1S, Janice Wong Yoke Chen.

[6] The Company, in this case, appointed an international management consultancy firm, Reddal, in 2018 for the purpose of transforming the Company from campus to research and education platforms in Asia, and the aim is to maximize synergies between its different operational areas and improve operational efficiency and effectiveness. This transformation involved several units

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 MarsdenLR 2734

INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPURPARIMALA BALASINGAM – AppellantVersusMONASH UNIVERSITY MALAYSIA SDN BHD – RespondentAward No: 814 of 2025 [Case No: 5/4-1448/20]

The court established that a voluntary acceptance of a Mutual Exit Package constitutes mutual termination rather than dismissal, placing the burden of proof on the claimant to demonstrate otherwise.

Cases Referred (7)

INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
PARIMALA BALASINGAM – Appellant
Versus
MONASH UNIVERSITY MALAYSIA SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 814 of 2025 [Case No: 5/4-1448/20]