Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Post-dismissal employment admission - Several cases acknowledge that Claimants were employed after dismissal, but often lack concrete evidence of earnings, impacting backwages calculation. For example, in
JUNAIDY SULAIMAN vs PPG COATINGS (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD - 2024 MarsdenLR 1101
, the Court notes the Claimant had post-dismissal income (~RM230,000), but the evidence of actual earnings was not detailed. Similarly, inMUHAMMAD SAID HJ ABDULLAH vs MELAKA BEKAL SDN BHD - 2023 MarsdenLR 1479
, the Claimant's fixed-term contract was dismissed before expiry, with no post-dismissal earnings available for deduction due to the period of unexpired contract.Requirement to prove gainful employment - Courts emphasize the need for Claimants to substantiate post-dismissal earnings. In
NADIAH OTHMAN vs GDP INTERIORS SDN BHD - 2023 MarsdenLR 1330
andABDUL SIDIK ABDUL HAMID vs PERUSAHAAN OTOMOBIL NASIONAL SDN BHD - 2023 MarsdenLR 1334
, Claimants provided evidence (e.g., part-time jobs, employment in February 2023 earning RM3,000/month), which the Court considered in assessing backwages. When Claimants fail to produce evidence (e.g.,KHAIRUL ANUAR AB AZIZ vs JET CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING SDN BHD & ANOR - 2025 MarsdenLR 3663
), no deductions are made, and the Court proceeds based on available facts.Legal principles for deductions - The Court consistently states that if gainful employment is established, deductions from backwages should be made, typically around 10-20%, depending on the case (
ABDUL SIDIK ABDUL HAMID vs PERUSAHAAN OTOMOBIL NASIONAL SDN BHD - 2023 MarsdenLR 1334
,LEE TZE TORNG vs LIMMAS MANUFACTURING (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD - 2024 MarsdenLR 16
). When no evidence exists, no deductions are applied (KHAIRUL ANUAR AB AZIZ vs JET CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING SDN BHD & ANOR - 2025 MarsdenLR 3663
).Impact of lack of evidence - In cases like
SITI HASMAH AHMAD AZAHAR vs PLENITUDE HEIGHTS SDN BHD - 2024 MarsdenLR 389
, the absence of evidence on post-dismissal earnings leads the Court not to deduct from backwages, even if the Claimant is employed later. Conversely, when evidence is provided, deductions are justified to reflect actual earnings and prevent unjust enrichment.Assessment of fairness and credibility - Courts consider whether Claimants have contributed to their own predicament (e.g.,
LEE TZE TORNG vs LIMMAS MANUFACTURING (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD - 2024 MarsdenLR 16
) and whether dismissals were justified. Unchallenged testimony of current employment (e.g.,ANG CHIN GAIK vs WV SERVICES MALAYSIA SDN BHD - 2025 MarsdenLR 4282
, earning RM32,500/month) influences the Court to factor in significant post-dismissal earnings when awarding backwages.Analysis and Conclusion:In Labour Law cases involving admissions of post-dismissal employment, the key factor is the availability and credibility of evidence demonstrating actual earnings. Courts recognize that gainful employment after dismissal warrants deductions from backwages to ensure fairness. However, in the absence of such evidence, no deductions are made, and the Court awards backwages based on the Claimant's unchallenged testimony or other available proof. The principle remains that the Court should assess all relevant facts, including post-dismissal earnings, to arrive at a just and equitable award.
Imagine being dismissed from your job, fighting for or compensation in Malaysia's , and securing a win—only to face deductions from your because you admitted to new employment but couldn't prove your earnings. This scenario raises a critical question in labour law: In an Labour Law Case there is Admission that the Claimant was Employed Post Dismissal but there is no Evidence of Earning?
This common pitfall can significantly reduce awards under the . Courts aim for fairness, balancing the claimant's loss against potential mitigation through new work. In this post, we delve into judicial trends, key precedents, and practical advice, drawing from established cases. Note: This is general information based on jurisprudence; consult a legal professional for specific advice.
Generally, when a claimant admits post-dismissal employment but provides no evidence of earnings, Industrial Courts are inclined to deduct from —often around 25% or more—to account for presumed income. This stems from the principle that courts must consider . Full without deduction are rare unless unemployment is proven.
As stated: This court must take into account any post dismissal earnings of the claimant in order to make an appropriate deduction from the to be awarded.
Courts consistently emphasize evaluating post-dismissal income when quantifying . Here's a breakdown:
These principles ensure awards aren't inflated, promoting equity for employers.
In
, the court mandated deductions for admitted post-dismissal work, absent contrary proof. Similarly,
referenced , holding: even if no evidence is adduced as regards post dismissal earnings, the court is entitled... to make a deduction for post dismissal earnings.
A prime example is
, where the judge reduced by 25% due to no evidence: in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I am inclined to make reasonable deduction on the accordingly for post dismissal earning.
Failure to submit documents like EPF statements reinforces presumptions: Failure to submit the EPF statements can only be taken to mean the Claimant wishes to hide his post dismissal earnings.
Courts also limit awards considering industry status. In one appeal, were capped at 50% as there is no evidence on record to hold that the petitioner was not gainfully employed during the termination. 2019 0 Supreme(Chh) 493 This reflects ratios prioritizing evidence.
Primarily, claimants bear the to prove low or no earnings post-dismissal. However, employers must substantiate misconduct for dismissal under . In cases without , like attendance manipulation or force majeure claims, courts rule against employers failing proof burdens.
rulings highlight employer pitfalls: failure to appear presumes claimant truths, leading to awards but still subject to earnings scrutiny.
Here, unchallenged testimony of low earnings (RM60 daily) prompted only a 10% deduction.
Analogous cases reinforce caution on unproven claims:
, courts assess quantum considering the fact, if established by evidence or admitted, that the workman has been gainfully employed elsewhere after his dismissal.
These illustrate a judicial preference for evidence over assertions, applicable across labour disputes.
Prepare for cross-examination on mitigation duties.
For Employers:
Courts urge: Produce evidence to avoid presumptions.
In summary, admission of post-dismissal employment without earnings evidence typically triggers 25%+ deductions in , as courts presume mitigation unless disproven. Burden lies with claimants, but employers must prove just cause. Key precedents like
,
, and
guide this balanced approach.
Takeaways:- Evidence is king—gather it early.- Silence costs; transparency pays.- Awards reflect fairness, not windfalls.
This analysis draws from Malaysian jurisprudence for educational purposes. Labour disputes turn on facts; seek tailored advice from qualified counsel.
– Post-dismissal earnings consideration.
– Deductions despite no evidence.
– 25% deduction example.
– Silence leading to reductions.
– EPF non-submission implications.
– factor.
– Minimal earnings deduction.
[8] In view of the above, the High Court remitted the case No: 11/4-2084/20 to the Industrial Court to determine the appropriate backwages to be awarded to the Claimant as provided for under the law. ... line with equity and good conscience that the Industrial Court , in assessing quantum of backwages, should take into account the fact, if establ....
and good conscience that the Industrial Court, in assessing quantum of backwages, should take into account the fact, if established by evidence or admitted, that the workman has been gainfully employed elsewhere after his dismissal. ... It is clear that the Claimant was earning an income from her part time job although the amount is not stated in Court....
and good conscience that the Industrial Court, in assessing quantum of backwages, should take into account the fact, if established by evidence or admitted, that the workman has been gainfully employed elsewhere after his dismissal. ... It is the Claimant's evidence that his termination from employment with the Company shows that the Company has engaged in unfair labour....
Failure to submit the EPF statements can only be taken to mean the Claimant wishes to hide his post dismissal earnings. [87] On the facts of this case, there is evidence of post-dismissal income after the Claimant was dismissed by the Company. ... into account the fact, if established by evidence or admitted, that the workman has been....
that the Industrial Court, in assessing quantum of back wages, should take into account the fact, if established by evidence or admitted, that the workman has been gainfully employed elsewhere after his dismissal. ... RM21,400.00 x 5 = RM107,000.00 Post Dismissal Earning [23] The burden is on the Claimant to prove that he was unable ....
This reduction can be made when there was a post dismissal earning after the dismissal and when the claimant had caused or contributed to his own predicament". ... a claim of constructive dismissal where the Company disputes the dismissal, it is now upon the Claimant to prove his case that he had been dismissed in line with the claim ....
and good conscience that the Industrial Court, in assessing quantum of backwages, should take into account the fact, if established by evidence or admitted, that the workman has been gainfully employed elsewhere after his dismissal. ... The Claimant has given unchallenged evidence that after his dismissal from employment with the Company, he had not be....
It was the Claimant's uncontroverted testimony that he is currently employed as a Crane Operator. The Court is under a duty by law to make a deduction for post dismissal earnings. (See Dr James Alfred (Sabah) v. ... However, no evidence was led on the post-dismissal earnings of the Claimant after he was dismissed on 17 June 2020 due t....
It was the Claimant's uncontroverted testimony that he is currently employed as a Security Guard since January 2024 earning RM60.00 daily and that it was not a permanent position. Hence, this Court is of the view that a deduction of 10% ought to be made for post dismissal earnings. ... [34] It is trite law that the Company must produce convincing evidence to prove to....
[40] Having considered all the facts of case on the appropriate sum to be awarded and after taking into account that the Claimant's post dismissal earning of RM32,500.00 per month from the period of mid May 2023 until mid November 2023, this Court hereby orders that the Claimant ... This Court will take into account the Claimant's post d....
The claimant himself has stated to the police while giving complaint about accident, that he was a storekeeper in a hotel. 7. In the appeal, the Insurance Company has challenged the award on the ground that, the award is not in consonance with the facts and evidence placed on record. Contrary to his statement in F.I.R marked as Ex.P-1, the claimant has deposed that he was working as a cook at the time of accident and presently working as watchman. There is no evidence to show the cla....
5. Appellant, therefore, decided to assail that decision before the learned Single Judge in a writ application which was heard and disposed off on 12.10.2017 without interfering with the order of the Industrial Court for the following reasons:- "3. The Industrial Court has limited the back-wages to the extent of 50% finding that there is no evidence on record to hold that the petitioner was not gainfully employed during the termination as no enquiry in this regard was made by the Lab....
On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that there is no evidence that the daughter was earning anything or was employed. 7. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has further submitted that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has correctly held that 50% of the amount earned by the deceased is to be deducted for personal expenses as the claimant-respondent No.1 was major, educated woman and employed, working in Aaj Smaj newspaper and therefore, she....
Therefore, the Learned Workmen Commissioner fixed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.2,768/- on the basis of the Minimum Wages Act, which is reasonable and therefore, the same is confirmed. There is no dispute about the relevant factor 221.37 and therefore, the same is confirmed. The claimant claimed that he was earning Rs.4,000/- per month but there is no evidence to prove the same.
The claimant stated that he is earning Rs.5,000/- per month, but there is no evidence to substantiate the same. Hence the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.2,000/- and calculated the annual income at Rs.24,000/- (Rs.2,000/-x 12). The claimant is a servant in a Grocery Shop and he cannot lift bags and he is unable to work as before. Even though the Doctor has assessed that there is 30% disability, the Tribunal fixed the disability at 25%.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
