SUBJECT INDEX

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Judicial review – Certiorari – Application to quash award of Industrial Court – Employee's employment ceased on medical grounds – Whether process must be referred to Medical Board appointed by company – Whether company could summarily force employee to retire early purely based on medical report – Collective agreement – Whether binding on all parties – Whether award tainted with Anisminic error, Wednesbury unreasonableness and procedural impropriety
Norbed Husain v. Malaysia Airport Holdings Bhd & Anor And Another Case
(Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh J) [2025] 1 ILR 73

CONTRACT

Agency – Principal and agent – Whether there was principal-agent relationship – Whether principal liable for fraud perpetrated by agent acting within scope of authority – Whether fraud committed for benefit of principal or agent relevant consideration – Whether principal liable to indemnify for losses caused by action of agent
Ahmad Faizal Ahmad Zamzami v. Telekom Malaysia Bhd & Another Appeal
(S Nantha Balan, Collin Lawrence Sequerah & Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid JJCA) [2025] 1 ILR 1

Employment contract – Absence of written employment contract – Termination of fixed-term contract – Claimant hired for specific project that was to be completed within specific timeframe – Parties did not enter into written employment contract – Claimant orally informed by company that his services were no longer required – Allegation by company that claimant was never appointed, hired or contracted by company – Whether claimant workman/employee of company – Whether there was employer-employee relationship between parties – Whether conduct of parties demonstrated existence of employment contract
Yeoh Chin Hock v. Ikat Tegas Jaya Sdn Bhd
(Pravin Kaur Jessy) [2025] 1 ILR 137

Employment contract – Constructive dismissal – Complaints of sexual harassment against employee – Employee found guilty by domestic inquiry panel – Domestic inquiry panel recommended punishment of suspension of three days – Employer decided that recommendation by panel too light and decided to demote employee – Employee's salary reduced and allowance taken away – Employee resigned and claimed constructive dismissal – Whether there was victimisation by employer – Whether employer's act of not complying with punishment recommended by domestic inquiry panel breach of term of employment contract – Whether there was constructive dismissal
Adnan Osup v. Empire Manufacturing Sdn Bhd
(Vanithamany Sivalingam) [2025] 1 ILR 118

Employment contract – Termination – Claimant entered into fixed-term employment contract with first company – Claimant mobilised to work in Vietnam and signed another contract with company in Vietnam – Company in Vietnam said to be agent of first company – Allegations by company in Vietnam that claimant lacked in performance, reporting and communication skills – Claimant's employment contract terminated by first company – Whether claimant employed by first company or company in Vietnam – Whether company in Vietnam mere agent of first company – Whether contract entered into with company in Vietnam mere subcontract – Whether contract demonstrated employer-employee and master-servant relationship between claimant and first company – Whether there was valid and binding employment contract between first company and claimant – Whether employment contract terminated prematurely – Whether termination lawful and substantiated
Azman Isa v. Technip Geoproduction (M) Sdn Bhd
(Zulhelmy Hassan) [2025] 1 ILR 155

LABOUR LAW

Dismissal – Employment – Employee's employment ceased on medical grounds – Whether process must be referred to Medical Board appointed by company – Whether company could summarily force employee to retire early purely based on medical report – Collective agreement – Whether binding on all parties – Whether award tainted with Anisminic error, Wednesbury unreasonableness and procedural impropriety
Norbed Husain v. Malaysia Airport Holdings Bhd & Anor And Another Case
(Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh J) [2025] 1 ILR 73

Employment – Dismissal – Constructive dismissal – Complaints of sexual harassment against employee – Employee found guilty by domestic inquiry panel – Domestic inquiry panel recommended punishment of suspension of three days – Employer decided that recommendation by panel too light and decided to demote employee – Employee's salary reduced and allowance taken away – Employee resigned and claimed constructive dismissal – Whether there was victimisation by employer – Whether employer's act of not complying with punishment recommended by domestic inquiry panel breach of term of employment contract – Whether there was constructive dismissal – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3)
Adnan Osup v. Empire Manufacturing Sdn Bhd
(Vanithamany Sivalingam) [2025] 1 ILR 118

Employment – Dismissal – Domestic inquiry – Allegations of forced resignation – Complaints of sexual harassment against employee – Whether there was domestic inquiry – Whether there was breach of natural justice
Adnan Osup v. Empire Manufacturing Sdn Bhd
(Vanithamany Sivalingam) [2025] 1 ILR 118

Employment – Dismissal – Domestic inquiry – Proceedings – Male employee alleged to have committed sexual harassment on complainant – Employee allegedly dragged his palm along complainant's right waist toward area below her right armpit – Domestic inquiry found employee guilty of misconduct – Employee dismissed from employment – Whether there were flaws in domestic inquiry proceedings – Whether domestic inquiry defective – Whether there was breach of natural justice – Whether employee dismissed with just cause or excuse – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Kamarul Baharin Kamarudin v. Composites Technology Research Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Amrik Singh) [2025] 1 ILR 184

Employment – Dismissal – Misconduct – Sexual harassment – Male employee alleged to have committed sexual harassment on complainant – Employee allegedly dragged his palm along complainant's right waist toward area below her right armpit – Employee found guilty of misconduct and dismissed from employment – Whether claimant had committed misconduct of sexual harassment – Whether physical touch accidental – Whether complainant's delay of two weeks in reporting about sexual harassment jeopardised her complaint against claimant – Whether proven misconduct justified dismissal – Whether employee dismissed with just cause or excuse – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) – Employment (Amendment) Act 2012, s. 18A – Anti-Sexual Harassment Act 2022, s. 2
Kamarul Baharin Kamarudin v. Composites Technology Research Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Amrik Singh) [2025] 1 ILR 184

Employment – Dismissal – Poor performance – Employee failed to meet Performance Improvement Plan goals – Employee dismissed from employment due to poor performance – Whether poor performance established – Whether employee warned about poor performance – Whether employee given sufficient opportunity to improve – Whether employee failed to sufficiently improve performance – Whether dismissal with just cause and excuse – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3), 30(5) & 30(6A)
Tung Yoke Leng v. Maxis Broadband Sdn Bhd
(Vanithamany Sivalingam) [2025] 1 ILR 208

Employment – Termination – Claimant entered into fixed-term employment contract with first company – Claimant mobilised to work in Vietnam and signed another contract with company in Vietnam – Company in Vietnam said to be agent of first company – Allegations by company in Vietnam that claimant lacked in performance, reporting and communication skills – Claimant's employment contract terminated – Termination letter came from first company – Whether claimant employed by first company or company in Vietnam – Whether company in Vietnam mere agent of first company – Which company had employer-employee relationship with claimant – Which company demonstrated control over employee – Whether there was valid and binding employment contract between first company and claimant – Whether employment contract terminated prematurely – Whether termination with just cause or excuse – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 2, 20 22(2), 22(3), 29(g) & 30(5)
Azman Isa v. Technip Geoproduction (M) Sdn Bhd
(Zulhelmy Hassan) [2025] 1 ILR 155

Employment – Termination – Termination of fixed-term contract – Claimant hired for specific project that was to be completed within specific timeframe – Parties did not enter into written employment contract – Claimant orally informed by company that his services were no longer required – Allegation by company that claimant was never appointed, hired or contracted by company – Whether claimant workman/employee of company – Whether there was dismissal – Whether dismissal with just cause or excuse – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(1A)
Yeoh Chin Hock v. Ikat Tegas Jaya Sdn Bhd
(Pravin Kaur Jessy) [2025] 1 ILR 137

Wages – Restructuring – Service charge – Whether employer may convert all or part of service charge meant for distribution to employee, to form part of minimum wages – Whether deduction from service charge to top up basic salary unlawful – Whether done with employees' knowledge and consent – Whether restructuring of wages done unilaterally – Whether party signing document bound by terms and conditions contained therein – Whether employees adduced evidence to show how many service charge points they were entitled to – Whether employees' claims filed outside time limit and payslips produced incomplete – Whether intervention of court warranted
Le Meridien Kuala Lumpur v. Zulkarnain Hussin & Ors And Another Appeal
(Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid J) [2025] 1 ILR 33

TORT

Vicarious liability – Employer – Test for imposition of vicarious liability – Whether employer liable for wrongful actions if action so closely connected with job assigned to employee – Whether action of employee within scope of employment – Whether employer had knowledge of nefarious scheme conducted by employee – Whether employer exonerated from liability if employee's action not authorised by employer – Whether there was close connection between wrongful act and nature of employee's employment – Whether carried out in course of employment
Ahmad Faizal Ahmad Zamzami v. Telekom Malaysia Bhd & Another Appeal
(S Nantha Balan, Collin Lawrence Sequerah & Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid JJCA) [2025] 1 ILR 1

INDEKS PERKARA

UNDANG-UNDANG BURUH

Pekerjaan – Pekerja – Tuntutan faedah bencana kerja – Pekerja terlibat dalam kemalangan jalan raya dalam perjalanan pulang dari tempat kerja ke rumah – Pekerja mengalami kecederaan parah dan kecacatan kekal serta kini memegang kad orang kelainan upaya (OKU) – Tuntutan faedah pekerja untuk bencana kerja di Pertubuhan Keselamatan Sosial (PERKESO) ditolak – Rayuan perayu pada Jemaah Rayuan Keselamatan Sosial tidak berjaya – Sama ada tujuan perjalanan dan kemalangan yang berlaku mempunyai kaitan dengan penggajian serta pekerjaan pekerja – Singgahan sebelum meneruskan perjalanan ke destinasi – Sama ada kemalangan mesti berlaku di tempat kerja – Akta Keselamatan Sosial Pekerja 1969, ss. 2(11), 24(1) & 91
Muhammad Fikrurrahim Awang lwn. Ketua Pengarah Pertubuhan Keselamatan Sosial
(Mohamad Abazafree Mohd Abbas H) [2025] 1 ILR 57

Pekerjaan – Pekerja – Tuntutan faedah bencana kerja – Rayuan di Mahkamah Tinggi terhadap keputusan Jemaah Rayuan Keselamatan Sosial ('JRKS') – Pekerja terlibat dalam kemalangan jalan raya dalam perjalanan pulang dari tempat kerja ke rumah – Pekerja mengalami kecederaan parah dan kecacatan kekal serta kini memegang kad orang kelainan upaya (OKU) – Tuntutan faedah pekerja untuk bencana kerja di Pertubuhan Keselamatan Sosial (PERKESO) ditolak – Rayuan perayu pada JRKS tidak berjaya – Sama ada terdapat kelewatan dalam memfailkan notis dan rekod rayuan di Mahkamah Tinggi – Sama ada notis rayuan perlu menyatakan sama ada rayuan adalah terhadap keseluruhan atau sebahagian keputusan JRKS – Akta Keselamatan Sosial Pekerja 1969, ss. 2(11), 24(1) & 91
Muhammad Fikrurrahim Awang lwn. Ketua Pengarah Pertubuhan Keselamatan Sosial
(Mohamad Abazafree Mohd Abbas H) [2025] 1 ILR 57

PERKATAAN & ISTILAH

'dari tarikh perintah dibuat' – Tuntutan faedah bencana kerja oleh pekerja ditolak oleh Pertubuhan Keselamatan Sosial (PERKESO) – Rayuan di Mahkamah Tinggi terhadap keputusan Jemaah Rayuan Keselamatan Sosial yang menolak rayuan pekerja – Pengiraan tempoh 60 hari bawah s. 91 Akta Keselamatan Sosial Pekerja 1969 – Sama ada bermula dari tarikh keputusan dimaklumkan pada pekerja
Muhammad Fikrurrahim Awang lwn. Ketua Pengarah Pertubuhan Keselamatan Sosial
(Mohamad Abazafree Mohd Abbas H) [2025] 1 ILR 57