CASE HIGHTLIGHTS

SATHASIVAM MUTHUSAMY v. TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
ANDERSEN ONG WAI LEONG
AWARD NO. 1200 OF 2021 [CASE NO: 11/4-636/20]
5 AUGUST 2021

CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT: Terms and conditions – Notice of termination – Claimant detained and arrested for possession of dangerous drugs but failing to inform the company – Company terminating him, based on frustration of contract – Whether reasonable – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Whether dismissal with just cause and excuse – Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)

CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT: Terms and conditions – Notice of termination – Whether it had been backdated, premature and pre-emptive and issued without due process – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether his arrest and detention had rendered his contract of employment impossible to perform – Whether termination simpliciter – Whether an enquiry had been required – Factors to consider – Effect of

DISMISSAL: Police investigation – Claimant arrested and detained in prison – Claimant not turning up for work and failing to apply for leave from the company – What he should have done if he had been serious about continuing in employment with it – Whether the claimant had been unable to perform the job he had been hired for, due to his arrest and detention – Length of his stay in prison – Effect of – Company’s actions towards him – Whether justified – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse


KEVIN COLANDAIRAJ v. HEALTHCARE OPTIMISATION PARTNERS SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
NOOR RUWENA MOHD NURDIN
AWARD NO. 1399 OF 2021 [CASE NO: 2(12)/4-473/20]
21 SEPTEMBER 2021

DISMISSAL: Abandonment – Claimant not agreeing with the direction the company had been moving towards and failing to realign himself with his co-founders – Whether he had abandoned his job – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of

DISMISSAL: Constructive dismissal – Change in job function – Claimant given a deadline to revert with an answer on whether he is onboard with the company’s plans – Whether imposing a deadline on him to revert with an answer had been unreasonable – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Whether he had been constructively dismissed – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse

DISMISSAL: Constructive dismissal – Change in reporting structure and demotion – Whether the company’s implementation of OpPlan19 had been a fundamental breach of his contract of employment – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Claimant’s position in the company – Whether he had been obliged to comply and participate – Perusal of his employment contract – What it had shown – Whether the company had indicated any mala fide intention towards him – Effect of – Whether he had been constructively dismissed – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse

DISMISSAL: Constructive dismissal – Salary – Claimant’s salaries not paid/part paid – Whether it had constituted a fundamental breach of his contract of employment – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether he had condoned it – Claimant’s position in the company – What it had reflected – Whether he had been constructively dismissed – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse

EVIDENCE: Documentary evidence – Whether the claimant had been a workman within the definition of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Claimant wearing multiple hats in the company, including that of a majority shareholder – Effect of – Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 2