Resignations must adhere to procedural rules and any claims of coercion must be substantiated; agreed settlements are binding and discretionary bonuses are not enforceable without prior contractual terms.

Steve Ritikos J:

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

(After Full Trial)

Plaintiff’s Claim

The plaintiff was the executive secretary of the Miri Chamber of Commerce and Industry (“the Chamber”) with a monthly salary of RM5,000. The plaintiff’s claim is against the Chamber which is a society incorporated under the Societies Act 1966 . The Defendant is named as the Defendant pursuant to Section 9 (c)

Plaintiff alleged that by a letter dated 1.12.2014, the plaintiff gave prior written notice of his resignation as the executive secretary to the Chamber in accordance with the Chamber’s Staff Services Rules 2013, i.e. that the notice shall be 3 months prior written notice. Plaintiff alleged that his last day of work would be end of February 2015. Plaintiff also alleged that he informed the Chamber orally of his notice of resignation. However, the plaintiff alleged that he was forced to resign at the end of December 2014 upon giving his notice of resignation on 16.12.2014. Plaintiff alleged that the Chamber’s unlawful act of forcing the plaintiff to resign end of December 2014 had deprived him of the opportunity to earn the 2 months salary amounting to RM10,000.00 from January 2015 to February 2015. Plaintiff also alleged that the Chamber failed to pay him the one month salary in lieu of annual leave amounting to RM5,000.00 and bonus payment of RM10,000.00 as promised to him. Plaintiff alleged that despite a demand, the Chamber failed to pay the total sum of RM25,000.00.

Therefore the Plaintiff claims against the Chamber for the following:-

(i)the sum of RM25,000.00;

(ii)that the Chamber do pay the 6% contribution on the Plaintiff salary of RM25,000.00 to the Employee Provident Fund;

(iii)interest on the said sum of RM25,000.00 at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of issuance of this writ until full and final settlement by the Defendant; and

(iv)costs.

The Defendant’s Case

The defendant’s case was that:

(i)by the plaintiff’s own letter dated 1.12.2014, plaintiff had voluntarily resigned on his own free will and accord, and his last day of work was on 31.12.2014, which coincided with the ending of Chairmanship by Temenggong Lee Sie Tong (the then Chairman of the Chamber);

(ii)The plaintiff’s letter dated 1.12.2014 was only submitted to the Chamber on 16.12.2014 and thus the said notice is short and unlawful;

(iii)Despite the short notice, after due deliberation by the Chamber’s Committee at the Committee Meeting on 16.12.2014, the Chamber accepted the plaintiff’s resignation and a settlement agreement was reached between the plaintiff and the Chamber that subject to statutory deduction, in addition to the payment of RM5,000.00 for salary for December 2014, the Chamber will pay the plaintiff the sum of RM15,000.00 being 2 months bonus plus an ex gratia sum equivalent to one month salary in lieu of leave;

(iv)That the plaintiff himself had attended the Meeting on 16.12.2014;

(v)That the plaintiff had received his salary for December 2014 for the sum of RM5,000.00;

(vi)By a letter from the plaintiff to the Chamber dated 31.12.2014, the plaintiff informed the Chamber that he was not happy with the said agreement and demanded an increase of RM10,000.00;

(vii)The Chamber did not agree to pay the plaintiff the total sum of RM25,000.00 and plaintiff’s demand was rejected;

The defendant had also counterclaimed against the plaintiff and the defendant alleged against the plaintiff as follows:

(i)On 31.12.2014 being the plaintiff’s last day of work at the Chamber, the plaintiff had willfully and deliberately or negligently managed or controlled the Chamber’s computer , interfered, copied, deleted, damaged, destroyed or disrupted the data and/or information stored in the Chamber’s computer at the Chamber;

(ii)Despite the Chamber’s request for the plaintiff to reinstate the Chamber’s computer in good working order, the plaintiff failed and/or neglected and/or refused to do so;

(iii)That sometime in January 2015 the plaintiff did return a pen drive to the Chamber containing certain