MELIPOLY ENTERPRISE SDN BHD v. ONG HONG YEOK & ANOR

[2024] 3 MLRA 443
Court of Appeal, Putrajaya
Hanipah Farikullah, Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali, See Mee Chun JJCA
[Civil Appeal No: W-01(A)-736-12-2021]
Hanipah Farikullah, Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali, See Mee Chun JJCA

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.

Sign up to view full cases Login