LLB Bulletin Header
LLB Bulletin #11/2022 02 November 2022

LATEST CASES (ILR Issue 10 of 2022)

SUBJECT INDEX

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Judicial review – Appeal against – Dismissal – Public officer dismissed from service – Use of public position for personal advantage – Judicial review against decision of Disciplinary Authority and Disciplinary Appeal Board – Whether charges valid and sufficiently particularised – Whether there was limitation period for disciplinary proceedings to be instituted – Whether decision-makers obliged to provide reasons for dismissal – Whether punishment proportionate to charge – Whether there was passive condonation – Whether presence of interested parties caused disciplinary proceedings to be defective – Rules of Court 2012, O. 53
Ezaky Mulya Sapawi v. Dato’ Sri Nadzri Siron & Ors
(Hanipah Farikullah, Azizah Nawawi & See Mee Chun JJCA) [2022] 4 ILR 1 cljlaw labourlaw

Public officer – Dismissal – Public officer dismissed from service – Use of public position for personal advantage – Judicial review against decision of Disciplinary Authority and Disciplinary Appeal Board – Whether charges valid and sufficiently particularised – Whether there was limitation period for disciplinary proceedings to be instituted – Whether decision-makers obliged to provide reasons for dismissal – Whether punishment proportionate to charge – Whether there was passive condonation – Whether presence of interested parties caused disciplinary proceedings to be defective – Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993, regs. 15, 37(2)(a), (b), 37D(a), (b) & 37(5)
Ezaky Mulya Sapawi v. Dato’ Sri Nadzri Siron & Ors
(Hanipah Farikullah, Azizah Nawawi & See Mee Chun JJCA) [2022] 4 ILR 1 cljlaw labourlaw

DISMISSAL

Abandonment – Claimant failing to report for work despite numerous reminders from the company – What it had indicated – Whether, by her actions, she had abandoned her employment with the company – Her reasons for the same – Whether acceptable – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether she had been dismissed
Usha Nandini Tangamuthu v. Nationgate Solution (M) Sdn Bhd
(Amrik Singh) [2022] 4 ILR 115 cljlaw labourlaw

Absenteeism – Claimant absent from work without leave for a month – Company not terminating her – What it had shown – Company advising her to return to work instead – Effect of – Whether she had, by her actions, indicated her intention of no longer continuing in the company’s employ – Effect of
Usha Nandini Tangamuthu v. Nationgate Solution (M) Sdn Bhd
(Amrik Singh) [2022] 4 ILR 115 cljlaw labourlaw

Breach of company rules and policies – Claimant in breach of the company’s health and safety policies – Whether successfully proven by the company against him – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Claimant either admitting to the charges or failing to respond to them until the trial or failing to back it up with the evidence – Effect of – Whether his explanations had been an afterthought and ought to be accepted – Whether the company, by its conduct, had acted mala fide towards him – Whether the company had successfully proven the charges against him – Whether it had justified his dismissal – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse
Kathiravan Arumugam v. Carrier International Sdn Bhd
(Iznan Ishak) [2022] 4 ILR 70 cljlaw labourlaw

Constructive dismissal – Demotion – Whether the claimant’s transfer to the Nilai Factory had amounted to a demotion – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Change in the Finance Department’s organisation chart – What it had indicated – Reasons for her transfer – Whether justified – Whether her transfer had been carried out bona fide – Whether it had justified her walking out of her employment and claiming constructive dismissal – Whether she had delayed in walking out of her employment – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse
Intan Suraiya Hashim v. Concrete Engineering Products Berhad
(Sumathi Murugiah) [2022] 4 ILR 43 cljlaw labourlaw

Constructive dismissal – Indefinite and prolonged unpaid leave – Claimant placed on extension upon extension of unpaid leave – Whether it had been justified – Whether it had been done with her consent and agreement – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether it had been imposed by the company unilaterally and had amounted to a breach of the fundamental terms of her contract of employment – The company’s actions thereafter – What it had shown – Whether the claimant had been victimised and mistreated – Whether her constructive dismissal claim ought to be allowed
M Kohmala Laxmi Manickavasagar v. Prometric Technology Sdn Bhd
(Augustine Anthony) [2022] 4 ILR 91 cljlaw labourlaw

Constructive dismissal – Salary – Claimant’s salary remaining unpaid indefinitely – Whether it had constituted a fundamental breach of her contract of employment – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Company’s justifications – Whether acceptable – Whether she had acted soon after the breach – Whether it had justified the claimant walking out of her employment and claiming constructive dismissal
M Kohmala Laxmi Manickavasagar v. Prometric Technology Sdn Bhd
(Augustine Anthony) [2022] 4 ILR 91 cljlaw labourlaw

Constructive dismissal – Transfer – Claimant transferred to the Nilai Factory despite objecting to the same – Whether she had been suitable for the job at the Nilai Factory – Whether she had been the only person that could have resolved the problem there – Effect of – Claimant’s suggestions on alternative resolutions for the Nilai Factory issue, neither considered nor adopted – What the company’s actions had shown – Whether the company’s action had been a fundamental breach that had gone to the root of her contract of employment – Whether the transfer had been carried out bona fide – Whether the claimant had been constructively dismissed – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse
Intan Suraiya Hashim v. Concrete Engineering Products Berhad
(Sumathi Murugiah) [2022] 4 ILR 43 cljlaw labourlaw

Misconduct – Claimant failing to respond to the company’s show cause letters – Whether it had constituted insolent behaviour that had been detrimental to the company’s discipline – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether it had proven his guilt to the charges against him
Kathiravan Arumugam v. Carrier International Sdn Bhd
(Iznan Ishak) [2022] 4 ILR 70 cljlaw labourlaw

Notice of termination – Forced resignation – Whether the claimant had been forced to resign by the company – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether she had successfully made out her case against the company
Usha Nandini Tangamuthu v. Nationgate Solution (M) Sdn Bhd
(Amrik Singh) [2022] 4 ILR 115 cljlaw labourlaw

Victimisation – Company withdrawing transportation privileges given to the claimant – Whether it had constituted a fundamental breach of her employment contract – Whether it had entitled her to stop reporting for work – Whether she had been entitled to those privileges contractually – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Perusal of the employment contract – Whether by the withdrawal of those privileges, she had been entitled to consider herself dismissed by the company – Company’s actions towards her – What it had shown – Whether the claimant had been dismissed by the company – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse
Usha Nandini Tangamuthu v. Nationgate Solution (M) Sdn Bhd
(Amrik Singh) [2022] 4 ILR 115 cljlaw labourlaw

EVIDENCE

Witness – Credibility – Whether the claimant had been a truthful and credible witness – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of
Usha Nandini Tangamuthu v. Nationgate Solution (M) Sdn Bhd
(Amrik Singh) [2022] 4 ILR 115 cljlaw labourlaw

LABOUR LAW

Industrial Court – Jurisdiction – Claim for unlawful dismissal – Claimants employee of Binational Commission – Matters referred to Industrial Court – Industrial Court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to hear and determine matters – Whether employee workman employed by Government – Whether service with employer considered form of Government service – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(1A), 20(3) & 52(1)
Ng Boon Leh v. Malaysian-American Commission On Educational Exchange (Macee) & Anor And Another Case
(Noorin Badaruddin J) [2022] 4 ILR 26 cljlaw labourlaw

Industrial Court – Jurisdiction – Claim for unlawful dismissal – Claimants employee of Binational Commission – Matters referred to Industrial Court – Industrial Court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to hear and determine matters – Whether Industrial Court could disregard decision made by Minister to refer matters to it – Whether Industrial Court’s jurisdiction could be challenged without having attacked Minister’s act of referring dispute to it – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(1A), 20(3) & 52(1)
Ng Boon Leh v. Malaysian-American Commission On Educational Exchange (Macee) & Anor And Another Case
(Noorin Badaruddin J) [2022] 4 ILR 26 cljlaw labourlaw

INDEKS PERKARA

KETERANGAN

Keterangan dokumentari – Sama ada YM merupakan seorang pekerja pihak syarikat – Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira – Keterangan yang dikemukakan – Kesannya – Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 2
Kalithas Sethabaram lwn. YWF Enterprise
(Zulhelmy Hasan) [2022] 4 ILR 148 cljlaw labourlaw

KETIDAKPATUHAN

Award – Pengetepian Award – Award Persetujuan direkodkan dengan kehadiran Chow Chuan Fat, yang bukan Pengarah syarikat dan tiada mandat melalui resolusi Lembaga Pengarah syarikat – Kesannya – Tindakan syarikat – Apa ia menunjukkan – Syarikat diwakili peguam – Implikasi – Sama ada permohonan pihak syarikat untuk mengetepikan Award tersebut harus dibenarkan – Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira – Keterangan yang dikemukakan – Kesannya – Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 56(2)(c)
Loy Sai Heng lwn. Bayu Bumimas Sdn Bhd
(Indra Nehru Savandiah) [2022] 4 ILR 111 cljlaw labourlaw

PEMBUANGAN KERJA

Hak meninggalkan – Sama ada YM telah meninggalkan perkhidmatan beliau dengan pihak syarikat melalui kegagalannya menjalankan ujian saringan Covid-19 – Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira – Keterangan yang dikemukakan – Penilaiannya – Kesannya – Sebab mengapa beliau gagal menjalankan ujian saringan tersebut – Sama ada dapat diterima – Kelakuan dan tindakan YM – Apa ianya menunjukkan – Kesannya – Sama ada beliau telah meninggalkan perkhidmatan beliau dengan pihak syarikat – Sama ada syarikat wajib membayar bagi ujian saringan beliau – Kesannya – Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab
Muhd Hazizi Ismail lwn. HBI Enterprise
(Mohd Zulbahrin Zainuddin) [2022] 4 ILR 63 cljlaw labourlaw

Salah laku – Sama ada YM telah terlibat dalam pergaduhan dan ingkar arahan majikan – Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira – Keterangan yang dikemukakan – Penilaian keterangan – Kesannya – Sama ada pihak syarikat telah berjaya membuktikan salah laku – salah laku ini terhadap beliau – Kesannya – Sama ada pembuangan kerjanya telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab
Kalithas Sethabaram lwn. YWF Enterprise
(Zulhelmy Hasan) [2022] 4 ILR 148 cljlaw labourlaw

Copyright © 2022 MYLAWBOX Sdn Bhd To unsubscribe click here