The Industrial Court has jurisdiction to award damages for dismissal without just cause, regardless of whether reinstatement is sought, and must rely solely on the reasons stated in the termination letter.

JUDGMENT

See Mee Chun JCA:

Introduction

[1] On 1 June 2020, the Industrial Court (IC) found the 1st respondent's dismissal to be without just cause and excuse and awarded a sum of RM47,000.00 which was derived from compensation in lieu of reinstatement, back wages and less a deduction of 20%.

[2] The appellant then sought to challenge the award of the IC by way of judicial review. This was dismissed by the High Court (HC) on 17 November 2021.

[3] The appeal to this Court was also dismissed for which we now give our reasons.

Parties And Background Facts

[4] The appellant is a company with the business activity of selling and distributing honey products. The 1st respondent commenced employment on 26 February 2016 with the appellant as Marketing Manager with a probationary period of 3 months. By letter of appointment dated 1 April 2016, he was appointed Marketing Manager from that date.

[5] The monthly salary of the 1st respondent then was RM5,000.00 and increased to RM6,000.00 from March 2018. Due to the appellant's financial situation, it was subsequently agreed that the 1st respondent's salary would be reduced by RM1,000.00 per month until the situation improved.

[6] The appellant's financial position did not improve. The 1st respondent was then issued a letter of termination dated 6 May 2019, "that we have no choice but to terminate your employment as per terms in your contract. This letter shall serve as a formal notice of termination pursuant to cl 4 of your employment contract".

[7] The 1st respondent was dissatisfied with the termination and sought advice from the Department of Industrial Relations, Bentong Branch. The reconciliation sessions did not materialise. The 1st respondent's representation was then referred to the IC.

At The HC

[8] As alluded to earlier, the IC found the 1st respondent to have been dismissed without just cause and excuse.

[9] The HC Judge (HCJ) dismissed the judicial review application of the appellant. The grounds of judgment (GOJ) can be found in encl 10/4-22.

[10] In para 22, the HCJ found there were only 2 issues to be decided:

"i. what was the actual reason for the termination of the 1st respondent's employment and has it been made out by the Applicant; and

ii. whether the 1st respondent's termination from his employment was done with or without just cause or excuse."

[11] The HCJ noted that the letter of termination stated that the reason for termination was due to the prevailing economic recession and prolonged period of poor sales revenue (para 23).

[12] The HCJ found that the appellant had relied on other grounds of termination not stated in the letter of termination. These other grounds were unsatisfactory performance, conflict of interest where there was a failure to disclose a personal interest in a company known as Bee & Joy Enterprise and sexual harassment. The HCJ agreed with the IC that the Court is only to inquire on the reasons advanced by the appellant for the dismissal and not go into another reason not relied upon or to find one for it. The cases of Goon Kwee Phoy v. J & P Coats (M) Bhd, 1981 MarsdenLR 117 , Airspace Management Services Sdn Bhd v. Col (B) Harbans Singh Chingar Singh; [2000] 3 MLJ 714; [2000] 4 CLJ 77; [2000] 3 AMR 3009 and Maritime Intelligence Sdn Bhd v. Tan Ah Gek ; [2022] 1 MLRA 56 ; [2021] 4 ILR 417; [2021] 10 CLJ 663, were cited to support this proposition. Refer to paras 24 to 27, GOJ. The HC concluded in paras 28 and 29 that the IC was right in not inquiring into reasons subsequently put up to justify the dismissal.

[13] On the issue of without just cause and excuse, the HCJ dealt firstly with whether the IC had jurisdiction to hear the 1st respondent's claim considering the allegation that the 1st respondent was not claiming for reinstatement. Relying on Sanbos (M) S/B v. Gan Soon Huat , [2021] 4 MLJ 924, the HCJ stated the following in paras 34 and 35:

"34. Based on the above, it is clear that the Industrial Court was right in ruling that it has jurisdiction to hear