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

2025 MarsdenLR 2790

INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
MOHD NASIR JOHARI – Appellant
Versus
MYBURGERLAB SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 488 Of 2025 [Case No: 20/4-562/23]



Petitioner Advocates:Manoharan Malayalam,Anis Salihah Abdul Malek ,Respondent Advocate: Justin Lee

The burden of proof lies with the claimant to establish forced resignation, which is not met when resignation follows negotiations and appears voluntary based on context and documentation.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20(3) - Claim of forced resignation - Court examines evidence to determine if resignation was voluntary - Burden of proof lies with Claimant to prove resignation was forced, given circumstances and context - Relevant guidelines from precedent cases discussed - Claimant's resignation accepted without objection or claim of coercion after mutual agreement with Company - Court finds no evidence of threat or undue influence leading to resignation. (Paras 10, 18, 19, 20, 48)

(B) Employment and Labour Law - Forced resignation - Definition and legal thresholds for proving forced resignation discussed - Previous rulings emphasize that mere suggestion to resign does not equate to coercion. (Paras 12, 40, 41)

(C) Evidence and Proof - Standard of proof in Industrial Court is balance of probabilities - Claimant's inability to substantiate allegations of coercion undermines his claim. (Paras 10, 56)

Facts of the case:
The Claimant alleges he was forced to resign from his position as Production Manager at the Company on 15 February 2022 after being threatened with disciplinary action due to poor performance, which he contended was due to pressure from management regarding loss of investor confidence. The Company countered that the resignation was voluntary and prompted by Claimant's decision.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the Claimant voluntarily resigned, having established the employment relationship was unsettled due to performance issues and that the resignation was accepted without coercion as supported by email correspondences.

Issues: The primary issues were whether the Claimant voluntarily resigned or was forced to resign and what constitutes just cause for termination under the law.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the Claimant had failed to meet the burden of proof to establish he was forced to resign. Furthermore, expressions in his resignation emails indicated a voluntary departure.

Result: Claimant's allegations of forced resignation denied; resignation deemed voluntary.

Table of Content
1. reference from director general regarding dismissal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. claimant's claim of forced resignation. (Para 4)
3. claimant's position and job responsibilities. (Para 5)
4. company's denial of forced resignation claims. (Para 6)
5. role of industrial court and applicable law. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
6. burden of proof based on forced resignation. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
7. standard of proof and implications of resignation. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
8. conflicting accounts of resignation circumstances. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
9. documents regarding resignation analyzed. (Para 24 , 25 , 26)
10. two resignation letters indicating voluntary nature. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
11. mutual agreement regarding resignation. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
12. evidence undermining claim of coercion. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
13. nature of resignation emails and gratitude. (Para 42 , 43)
14. dr. azizi's testimony regarding stress. (Para 44 , 45)
15. court's analysis of voluntary resignation. (Para 46 , 47 , 48)
16. conclusion regarding resignation as a result of negotiations. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53)
17. final conclusion on the claim of forced resignation. (Para 55)
Pravin Kaur Jessy:

Reference

[1] This is a reference dated 10 March 2023 by the Director General of Industrial Relations Malaysia to s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ("The Act") arising out of the alleged dismissal of Mohd Nasir Bin Johari (Claimant) by Myburgerlab Sdn Bhd (Company) on the 28 February 2022.

[2] The Director General of Industrial Relation's reference in this case requires the Court to hear and determine the Claimant's complaint of dismissal by the Company on 28 February 2022.

[3] In reaching this decision, the Court has carefully examined and analysed all relevant documents, submissions and the cause papers submitted in this case namely:

(i) Statement of Case dated 18 May 2023 ("SOC");

(ii) Statement in Reply dated 10 July 2023 ("SIR");

(iii) Rejoinder dated 15 August 2023 ("Rejoinder");

(iv) Claimant's Bundles of Documents - CLB-1, CLB-2;

(v) Company's Bundles of Documents - COB-1, COB-2, COB-3;

(vi) Claimant's Witness Statements - CLWS-1;

(vii) Witness Statement of Chin Ren Yi (COW-1) - COWS-1a, COWS-1b;

(viii) Notes of Proceedings;

(ix) Company's Written Submission In Reply dated 20 December 2024 and Company's Bundle of Authorities;

(x) Claimant's Written Submission dated 31 December 2024 and Claimant's Bundle of Authorities;

(xi) Company's Written Submission In Reply-1 dated 4 February 2025; and

(xii) Claimant's Written Submission in Reply dated 4 February 2025 and Claimant's Bundle of Authorities 2.

Background

[4] The dispute before this Court relates to the claim of forced resignation by Mohd Nasir Bin Johari ("Claimant") on the 28 February 2022.

The Claimant's Case

[5] The Claimant in his Statement of Case and Rejoinder pleaded inter alia as follows:

5.1. He was appointed as a Production Manager and CK Expansion Lead by the Company to oversee all operations of the Company's outlet in Central Kitchen.

5.2. His job scope included the following:

(a) Monitor the daily operations of the Company's outlet in Central Kitchen, ensuring operations run smoothly without any downtime;

(b) Ensuring that each product is sufficient for the outlet's use;

(c) Ensuring "Production Planning" for each product daily;

(d) Ensuring product quality meets the required standards;

(e) Ensuring that the products produced from the Company's outlet in Central Kitchen are Halal, clean and safe to eat;

(f) Ensuring that each raw material is sufficient for the use in the Company's outlet in Central Kitchen;

(g) Ensuring that every raw material has a Halal Certificate from any certified body recognized by JAKIM;

(h) To cooperate with HALNEX (Halal Consultant) to ensure that every product produced by the Company secures a Halal Certificate;

(i) To cooperate with RC & A Refrigeration Part Supplies Sdn Bhd for the development of the Company's outlet in Central Kitchen located at 6B, Jalan Teknolog

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