Back
2025 MarsdenLR 5567
INDUSTRIAL COURT MALAYSIA
Lim Teong Kim – Appellant
Versus
Perak FC Sdn. Bhd. – Respondent
22/4-77/24
An employer's justification for dismissal is limited to the reasons operating at the time of termination. Re-litigating disciplinary matters already settled by a final warning constitutes double jeopardy, and introducing new grounds post-dismissal is not permissible as the inquiry must reflect the reasons existing at the material time.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20(3) - Fixed-term employment contract - Unfair dismissal - Reasons for termination - Burden of proof - Double jeopardy. The function of the Industrial Court is to determine whether the dismissal was with just cause or excuse. The court must look strictly at the reasons operating in the mind of the employer at the time of the dismissal as stated in the notice of termination. It is an unfair labour practice for an employer to introduce fresh grounds post-dismissal that were not the operative reasons at the material time. Furthermore, an employee cannot be punished twice for the same instance of misconduct that has already been resolved through a disciplinary warning and an accepted apology.
Facts of the case:
A professional coach was employed under a two-year fixed-term contract. During the tenure, the employer issued a final warning regarding the coach's behavior, which the coach resolved by issuing a public apology. Subsequently, the employer terminated the coach's employment citing unsatisfactory team performance as the sole ground. During the proceedings, the employer attempted to resurrect the previously resolved behavioral issues and introduce new allegations of performance failure.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the employer was bound by the reason stated in the notice of termination. The attempt to rely on rectified disciplinary issues amounted to double punishment. The court found the performance benchmarks were not missed to a degree that justified summary dismissal of a fixed-term contract, and the termination was premature and lacked just cause.
Issues: The main issues were whether the employer could rely on past disciplinary matters that had been resolved, whether the employer could introduce new reasons for dismissal post-termination, and whether the dismissal was supported by just cause.
Ratio Decidendi: An employer is restricted to the specific reason for dismissal articulated at the time it was issued. Adjudication cannot extend to post-hoc justifications discovered or concocted after the dismissal. Punishing an employee twice for the same conduct—once via a warning and again via dismissal—violates principles of equity and natural justice.
Result: Dismissal without just cause or excuse. The employer is ordered to compensate the employee for the unexpired portion of the fixed-term contract.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court jurisdiction and procedural history of the industrial dismissal reference. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. claimant's contentions regarding contractual obligations, performance, and improper management interference. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 3. employer's justification for dismissal based on poor team performance and alleged employee misconduct. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 4. the industrial court's role and burden of proof in unfair dismissal cases. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 5. rule against double punishment and restricting dismissal grounds to those cited in the termination letter. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72) |
| 6. evaluation of performance improvement plan (pip) compliance and the mala fide nature of dismissal. (Para 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87) |
| 7. compensation principles for premature termination of a fixed-term employment contract. (Para 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92) |
| 8. final court order directing compensation payment to the claimant. (Para 93) |
REFERENCE :
This is a reference made under Section 20 (3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (Act 177), arising out of the dismissal of Lim Teong Kim (hereinafter referred to as “the Claimant”) by Perak FC Sdn. Bhd. (hereinafter referred to as “the Company”) on 24 May 2023.
AWARD
[1] The reference by the Director General of Industrial Relations (“DGIR”) in this case required the Court to hear and determine the Claimant’s complaint of dismissal by the Company on 24 May 2023.
I. Procedural History
[2] The Court received the letter pertaining to the DGIR’s reference under Section 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 on 2 January 2024.
[3] The matter was fixed for mention on 31 January 2024, 3 April 2024 and 18 October 2024.
[4] The trial proceeded on 18 November 2024, 19 November 2024, 5 March 2025 and concluded on 18 April 2024.
II. Parties’ Position On The Merits
a. The Claimant
[5] The Claimant is a former professional footballer and a distinguished football coach with over 2 decades of coaching experience. Following his playing career, he obtained a UEFA Professional Coaching License in 2005 and went on to coach in Europe, most notably with FC Bayern Munich from 2000 to 2012, where he was involved in the development of world-class players such as Thomas Müller, Toni Kroos, Emre Can and David Alaba. Upon returning to Malaysia in 2013, he served as the Director of the National Football Development Programme (NEDP), Director of Akademi Mokhtar Dahari, and Head Coach of the Malaysia U-16 National Team, playing a key role in the development of local youth talent.
[6] In or around August 2022, the Claimant was courted to join Perak FC as its Head Coach. He was first introduced to the senior management of the Company, including Dato’ Seri Abdul Azim Mohd Zabidi, En. Bobie Farid Shamsuddin (COW-1; Head of Sales, XOX Bhd.), Mr. Roy Ho, and En. Meor through a video conference held on 28 August 2022. The Claimant was invited to take up the position of Head Coach of Perak . He was assured that he would be given the necessary time, space, and support to develop a strong team with a focus on local talent. It was also represented to him that a monthly budget of RM1.2 million would be made available for player acquisition and team development.
[7] After due consideration and in reliance on the representations of the Company’s senior management, on 15 September 2022 the Claimant formally entered into a 2-year fixed-term Employment Contract with the Company, with an option to extend the same for a further year. The Claimant arrived in Malaysia on or around 12 September 2022 to commence his duties as Head Coach of Perak FC.
[8] The Employment Contract sets out the following Key Performance Indicators (KP
