Back
2025 MarsdenLR 117
INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
MOHD SHAHRIL HUSSIN – Appellant
Versus
MAASDOTS SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 436 Of 2025 [Case No: 15/4-992/23]
A Mutual Separation Agreement requires mutual consent; unilateral termination by an employer without valid agreement leads to constructive dismissal.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20(3) - Appeal concerning dismissal - The court found that the Claimant did not agree to a Mutual Separation Agreement, which the Company purportedly used to terminate his employment, leading to a claim of constructive dismissal. (Paras 3, 4, 60, 62)
(B) Constructive Dismissal - The doctrine defines circumstances where an employee resigns due to employer's repudiatory breach. The court emphasized that an employee can claim constructive dismissal only if there is a fundamental breach by the employer. (Paras 27, 41, 72)
Facts of the case:
The Claimant was dismissed by the Company on 31 October 2022 based on a Mutual Separation Agreement claimed by the Company but denied by the Claimant, resulting in a claim of constructive dismissal. (Paras 2, 4, 9)
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the Claimant proved that no valid separation agreement existed and established a claim for constructive dismissal against the Company. The Company was found to have committed a fundamental breach of the Claimant's employment contract. (Paras 90, 94)
Issues: The core issue was whether the Claimant had mutually agreed to terminate his employment through the Mutual Separation Agreement or whether this amounted to constructive dismissal. (Paras 3, 4)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of mutual consent in the alleged agreement and the unilateral actions of the Company constituted a fundamental breach, allowing the Claimant to resign and claim constructive dismissal. (Paras 72, 90)
Result: The Claimant was entitled to RM382,000.00 in compensation for back wages and compensation in lieu of reinstatement. (Para 107)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dismissal details and validity of agreement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 2. claimant's view on victimization and invalid msa. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 3. company's justification for separation agreement. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 4. overview of constructive dismissal principles. (Para 26 , 28 , 30 , 39) |
| 5. fundamental breach of employment contract. (Para 72 , 88) |
| 6. court orders compensation and payment terms. (Para 93 , 106) |
A. Reference
[1] This is a reference from the Director General for Industrial Relations to the Industrial Court of Malaysia under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ("the IRA 1967") as amended by the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2020 (A 1615), in respect of the dismissal of Mohd Shahril Bin Hussin ("the Claimant") by his employer, Maasdots Sdn Bhd ("the Company") on 31 October 2022.
B. Case Summary And Proceedings
[2] The dispute in our present case is over the termination of the Claimant's employment, purportedly pursuant to a Mutual Separation Agreement.
[3] The main issue for the Court's determination is whether the parties entered into a valid and binding Mutual Separation Agreement that lawfully and effectively terminated the Claimant's employment with the Company by mutual consent.
[4] The Claimant denied entering into any Mutual Separation Agreement and asserted that the Company's unilateral imposition of his departure on 31 October 2022, purportedly based on an alleged Mutual Separation Agreement to which he had never agreed, amounted to constructive dismissal.
[5] As with all other constructive dismissal cases, where the fact of dismissal is disputed, the Claimant began his case against the Company at the commencement of the trial.
[6] The Claimant did not call any other witnesses to give evidence at the trial. Only the Claimant gave evidence at the trial in support of his case against the Company.
[7] Upon the conclusion of the Claimant's case, the Company commenced its' case by calling the following people to give evidence in support of the Company's case against the Claimant.
(a) Ismail Bin Mohd Noor ("COW1") who was the Chief Executive Officer of the Group Companies of Bestinet Sdn Bhd;
(b) Muqri Bin Mohd Sofian (COW2) who was the Head of Human Resource of the Group Companies of Bestinet Sdn Bhd;
(c) Kunal Tayal (COW3) who was the Chief Financial Officer of the Group Companies of Bestinet Sdn Bhd; and
(d) Aminul Islam Bin Abdul Nor (COW4) who was the Founder and Group President of the Group Companies of Bestinet Sdn Bhd.
[8] The following cause papers and documents have been filed and/or marked as evidence before the Court and were referred to during the proceedings:
(a) The Claimant's Statement of Case dated 31 July 2023;
(b) The Company's Statement In Reply dated 21 August 2023;
(c) The Claimant's Rejoinder dated 1 September 2023;
(d) The Claimant's Bundle of Documents ("CLB1");
(e) The Claimant's Supplementary Bundle of Documents ("CLB2");
(f) The Company's Bundle of Documents ("Respondent's Additional Bundle of Documents) ("COB1");
(g) The Company's Bundle of Documents ("Respondent's Additional Bundle of Documents - 2") ("COB3");
(h) The Witness Statement of Mohd Shahril bin Hussin ("the Claimant") ("CLWS1");
(i) The Company's Witness Statement of Ismail bin Mohd Noor ("COWS1");
(x) The Company's Witness Statement of Muqri Bin Mohd Sofian ("COWS2");
(xi) The Company's Witness Statement of Kunal Tayal ("COWS3"); and
(xii) Witness Statement of Aminul Islam Bin Abdul Nor ("COWS4").
C. Salient Facts
[9] The Company is principally engaged in the business of providing technical information technology and computer services, know-hows and process of industrial engineering, in particular for goods and services to facilitate travelers' health screening system such a COVID-19. It is an entity within the Group of Companies of Bestinet Sdn Bhd.
[10] By a letter of appointment dated 27 July 2020 ("the Letter of Appointment"), the Claimant was employed by the Company
