ILR_Bulletin_01

Award	Parties	Page
	Majlis Agama Islam Selangor v. Bong Boon Chuen & Ors [Civil Appeal No: 01(i)-3-2009(B)]	[2010] 1 ILR 1
	Sure Catch Fishing Tackle Mfg Sdn Bhd v. Lily Ng & Anor [Originating Summons No: 25-16-2005]	[2010] 1 ILR 15
	VP Nathan & Partners v. Subramaniam Govindan Nair & Anor & Another Appeal [Civil Appeals Nos: P-01-69-01 & P-01-70-01]	[2010] 1 ILR 26
1272/2009	Royal Sungei Ujong Club v. Vijaysankar Arumugam [Case No: 15/4-2233/04]	[2010] 1 ILR 35
1376/2009	Awie Suaidie v. Malaysia Airlines [Case No: 8/4-510/01]	[2010] 1 ILR 54
1380/2009	Lee Choong Fook v. Mofaz Motorsport Sdn Bhd [Case No: 25(22)(7)/4-1975/04]	[2010] 1 ILR 74
1406/2009	Sarimah Lee v. Freescale Semiconductor (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd [Case No: 25(27)(5)/4–2299/07]	[2010] 1 ILR 103
1441/2009	Richard Felin Jinivon v. Sabah Forest Industries Sdn Bhd [Case No: 17/4-1090/07]	[2010] 1 ILR 142
1455/2009	Dr Thambirajah Ahgoram v. People’s Klinik (Jurosha Sdn Bhd) [Case No: 15/4-1580/05]	[2010] 1 ILR 179
1459/2009	Abdullah Md Yunos lwn. Pertubuhan Alumni UKM [No. Kes: 28(1)(4)/4-457/07]	[2010] 1 ILR 195
1477/2009	Kamaruddin Syed Omar lwn. YTL Technologies Sdn Bhd [No. Kes: 11/4-247/08]	[2010] 1 ILR 208
1482/2009	Mohd Rizal Kanabathi Abdullah lwn. Allson Genesis Hotel [No. Kes: 11/4-2528/06]	[2010] 1 ILR 216

Judicial review - Judicial review proceedings - Application to intervene - Whether O. 15 r. 6(2)(b) Rules of the High Court 1980 applicable - Whether application must be brought under O. 53 r. 8(1) - Whether indirect interest insufficient to justify intervention - Inherent jurisdiction of court - Rules of the High Court 1980, O. 15 r. 6(2)(b), O. 53 r. 8(1)
Majlis Agama Islam Selangor v. Bong Boon Chuen & Ors
(Zaki Tun Azmi CJ, Alauddin Mohd Sheriff PCA & Zulkefli Makinudin FCJ) [2010] 1 ILR 1

Statutory bodies - Appeal - Intervention in judicial review proceedings - Whether O. 15 r. 6(2)(b) Rules of the High Court 1980 applicable - Whether application must be brought under O. 53 r. 8(1) - Whether indirect interest insufficient to justify intervention - Inherent jurisdiction of court - Rules of the High Court 1980, O. 15 r. 6(2)(b), O. 53 r. 8(1)
Majlis Agama Islam Selangor v. Bong Boon Chuen & Ors
(Zaki Tun Azmi CJ, Alauddin Mohd Sheriff PCA & Zulkefli Makinudin FCJ) [2010] 1 ILR 1

Intervention - Application for - Judicial review proceedings - Whether O. 15 r. 6(2)(b) Rules of the High Court 1980 applicable - Whether application must be brought under O. 53 r. 8(1) - Whether indirect interest insufficient to justify intervention - Inherent jurisdiction of court - Rules of the High Court 1980, O. 15 r. 6(2)(b), O. 53 r. 8(1)
Majlis Agama Islam Selangor v. Bong Boon Chuen & Ors
(Zaki Tun Azmi CJ, Alauddin Mohd Sheriff PCA & Zulkefli Makinudin FCJ) [2010] 1 ILR 1

Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Inherent jurisdiction of court - Whether cannot be invoked to override application of a specific provision - Rules of the High Court 1980, O. 15 r. 6(2)(b), O. 53 r. 8(1)
Majlis Agama Islam Selangor v. Bong Boon Chuen & Ors
(Zaki Tun Azmi CJ, Alauddin Mohd Sheriff PCA & Zulkefli Makinudin FCJ) [2010] 1 ILR 1

Parties - Intervention - Judicial review proceedings - Whether O. 15
r. 6(2)(b) Rules of the High Court 1980 applicable - Whether application must be brought under O. 53 r. 8(1) - Whether indirect interest insufficient to justify intervention - Inherent jurisdiction of court - Rules of the High Court 1980, O. 15 r. 6(2)(b), O. 53 r. 8(1)
Majlis Agama Islam Selangor v. Bong Boon Chuen & Ors
(Zaki Tun Azmi CJ, Alauddin Mohd Sheriff PCA & Zulkefli Makinudin FCJ) [2010] 1 ILR 1

Absenteeism - Claimant absent without leave - Claimant warned before - Claimant counselled and put in a Performance Improvement Plan with certain goals in mind - Claimant repeating the breach - Whether it had constituted a gross violation of discipline - Whether the company had been justified in treating it so seriously - Whether the company had lost its trust and confidence in the claimant - Company dismissing the claimant - Effect of - Whether the termination by the company had been carried out bona fide - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Sarimah Lee v. Freescale Semiconductor (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Jalaldin Hussain) [2010] 1 ILR 103

Attendance - Lateness - Claimant counselled and put in a Performance Improvement Plan with certain goals in mind - Whether the claimant had been aware of the goals - Effect of - Claimant failing to improve - Claimant’s attitude to her misconduct - Effect of - Company viewing the misconducts as serious - Company dismissing the claimant - Whether the company had proven the misconduct - Evidence adduced by the company - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Sarimah Lee v. Freescale Semiconductor (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
Jalaldin Hussain [2010] 1 ILR 103

Breach of company rules and policies - Theft - Claimant charged with 2 counts of theft - Company carrying out investigations - Whether company had proven the misconduct against the claimant - Effect of - Whether a prima facie case had been made out against the claimant - Whether there had been any mala fide intent on the part of the company - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether the company had been right in dismissing the claimant - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Richard Felin Jinivon v. Sabah Forest Industries Sdn Bhd
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2010] 1 ILR 142

Breach of company rules and policies - Theft - Claimant allegedly removing company property without authorisation - Claimant denying charges - Whether there had been a written policy on removal of company property - Effect of - Whether the company had managed to prove the misconduct against the claimant - Whether the company had been right in dismissing the claimant - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Richard Felin Jinivon v. Sabah Forest Industries Sdn Bhd
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2010] 1 ILR 142

Constructive dismissal - Alleged transfer - Claimant offered a new job with a reduction in salary - Whether the claimant’s salary had been reduced before he left the company - Effect of - No termination letter produced by either the company or the claimant - Whether there had been a breach of the claimants terms and conditions of service - Effect of - Whether it had justified the claimant walking out of his employment - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Lee Choong Fook v. Mofaz Motorsport Sdn Bhd
(Jalaldin Hussain) [2010] 1 ILR 74

Constructive dismissal - Alleged transfer - Claimant offered a new job with a reduction in salary - Claimant still receiving the highest pay in the group of mechanics - Effect of - Whether it had been necessary to consult the claimant before imposing a reduction in his salary - Whether the company’s offer to the claimant of the reduced salary had been actuated by bad faith - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether it had justified the claimant walking out of his employment - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Lee Choong Fook v. Mofaz Motorsport Sdn Bhd
(Jalaldin Hussain) [2010] 1 ILR 74

Constructive dismissal - Alleged transfer - Claimant’s division being closed down - Whether the claimant had managed to prove otherwise - Effect of - Whether the claimant had been transferred or given an option to transfer to a different department in the company - Factors to consider - How the claimant had reacted to the alleged transfer order - Effect of - Whether it had justified the claimant walking out of her employment - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Lee Choong Fook v. Mofaz Motorsport Sdn Bhd
(Jalaldin Hussain) [2010] 1 ILR 74

Misconduct - Misrepresentation - Claimant misrepresenting his qualifications in order to secure the job - Effect of - Whether the club had relied on the misrepresentations - Effect of - Whether the club had proven the misconduct against the claimant - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Royal Sungei Ujong Club v. Vijaysankar Arumugam
(Ong Geok Lan) [2010] 1 ILR 35

Misconduct - Misrepresentation - What constitutes misrepresentation - Whether the claimant’s actions had constituted misrepresentation - Effect of - Whether the charges had been proven against the claimant - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Royal Sungei Ujong Club v. Vijaysankar Arumugam
(Ong Geok Lan) [2010] 1 ILR 35

Probationer - Claimant put on probation for 6 months - Company not giving the claimant a confirmation letter - Whether the claimant had remained a probationer when he had left the company - Effect of - When the claimant had commenced employment with the company - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Lee Choong Fook v. Mofaz Motorsport Sdn Bhd
(Jalaldin Hussain) [2010] 1 ILR 74

Performance - Unsatisfactory performance - Claimant given a warning - Claimant counselled numerous times - Claimant put on a Performance Improvement Plan with certain goals in mind - Claimant failing to improve - Effect of - Claimant admitting to having committed the misconducts - Whether her misconduct had been serious - Factors to consider - Whether the misconduct had been proven by the company - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Sarimah Lee v. Freescale Semiconductor (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Jalaldin Hussain) [2010] 1 ILR 103

Procedural impropriety - Company having internal procedures for inquiry - Company failing to follow own procedures - Reasons for non-compliance - Effect of - Whether it rendered the DI invalid - Effect of - Whether the DI had been in breach of the principles of natural justice - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Richard Felin Jinivon v. Sabah Forest Industries Sdn Bhd
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2010] 1 ILR 142

Admissions - Claimant cited for misconducts - Claimant admitting to the misconducts at the disciplinary hearing - Respondent dismissing the claimant from service - Whether dismissal had been too harsh a punishment to have imposed on the claimant - Effect of - Factors to consider - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Awie Suaidie v. Malaysia Airlines
(Muniandy Kannyappan) [2010] 1 ILR 54

Adverse inference - Non-production of a material witness - Whether that witness's testimony would have been damaging to the company - Whether an adverse inference should be drawn against the company - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3) & Evidence Act 1950, s. 114(g)
Richard Felin Jinivon v. Sabah Forest Industries Sdn Bhd
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2010] 1 ILR 142

Documentary evidence - Findings of the DI - Whether it had been accurate - Whether all the evidence of the investigation had been adduced at the DI - Effect of - Whether all the documents pertaining to the investigation had been made available to the claimant - Whether the claimant had been denied natural justice - Effect of - Whether the DI had been in breach of the principles of natural justice - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Richard Felin Jinivon v. Sabah Forest Industries Sdn Bhd
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2010] 1 ILR 142

Jurisdiction - Workman - Whether the claimant had been a workman within the ambit of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Position held by claimant - Age of the claimant - Evidence adduced - Whether arrangement had been characteristic of an employer-workman relationship - Effect of - Whether the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter - Effect of - Whether dismissal had been without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 2 and 20(1)
Dr Thambirajah Ahgoram v. People’s Klinik (Jurosha Sdn Bhd)
(Ong Geok Lan) [2010] 1 ILR 179

Remedies - Backwages - Claimant admitting to misconduct and contributing to it - Effect of - Whether deductions should be made from backwages for this - Effect of - What sort of deduction would be reasonable - Factors to consider - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Awie Suaidie v. Malaysia Airlines
(Muniandy Kannyappan) [2010] 1 ILR 54

Remedies - Compensation in lieu of reinstatement - Whether should be awarded to the claimant in view of the fact that he had admitted to the misconducts - Equitable remedy - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Awie Suaidie v. Malaysia Airlines
(Muniandy Kannyappan) [2010] 1 ILR 54

Remedies - Punishment - Claimant dismissed from service - Whether it had been too harsh considering all the surrounding circumstances of the case - Mitigating factors - Whether any had existed - Whether it had been taken into account by the respondent company - Effect of - Whether it should have been taken into account - Factors to consider - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Awie Suaidie v. Malaysia Airlines
(Muniandy Kannyappan) [2010] 1 ILR 54

Employment - Dismissal - Determination of - Whether a question of law or fact - Letters written by employees requesting to resign - Employees senior members of the Malaysian Bar - Whether employees had voluntarily resigned or unfairly dismissed - Whether High Court’s determination of question as a matter of fact constituted jurisdictional error warranting appellate intervention
VP Nathan & Partners v. Subramaniam Govindan Nair & Anor & Another Appeal
(Low Hop Bing JCA, Raus Sharif JCA & Abu Samah Nordin JCA) [2010] 1 ILR 26

Industrial Court - Award - Application to quash - Constructive dismissal - Whether proven - Conduct of applicant - Whether a reasonable tribunal would have concluded that 1st respondent dismissed - Whether Industrial Court’s decision could not be supported
Sure Catch Fishing Tackle Mfg Sdn Bhd v. Lily Ng & Anor
(Jeffrey Tan J) [2010] 1 ILR 15

"appears to the judge to be a proper person" - Rules of the High Court 1980, O. 53 r. 8(1) - Meaning of
Majlis Agama Islam Selangor v. Bong Boon Chuen & Ors
(Zaki Tun Azmi CJ, Alauddin Mohd Sheriff PCA & Zulkefli Makinudin FCJ) [2010] 1 ILR 1

Terma dan syarat - Sama ada tawaran responden mempunyai kaitan dengan kontrak perkhidmatan YM yang asal - Sama ada tawaran tersebut telah dikeluarkan berdasarkan rundingan antara responden dan YM - Kesannya - Sama ada tawaran tersebut merugikan YM - Sama ada YM mempunyai justifikasi untuk menolak tawaran tersebut - Kesannya - Responden kemudiannya menarik balik tawaran tersebut dan menamatkan perkhidmatan YM - Sama ada tindakan responden tersebut adalah adil kepada YM - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan tanpa alasan yang adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Abdullah Md Yunos lwn. Pertubuhan Alumni UKM
(Roslan Mat Nor) [2010] 1 ILR 195

Terma dan syarat - YM pada asalnya telah disahkan di dalam jawatannya - Responden kemudian telah menawarkan jawatan kepada YM secara kontrak - YM menolak - Ekoran itu YM ditamatkan perkhidmatan - Kesannya - Sama ada tindakan responden itu adalah adil - Sama ada responden mempunyai hak untuk meminda terma perkhidmatan YM secara unilateral - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Sama ada mahkamah harus terlibat di dalam soalan mengenai terma dan syarat yang harus dimasukkan ke dalam kontrak perkhidmatan antara YM dengan responden - Kesannya - Sama ada tindakan responden adalah adil terhadap YM - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan tanpa alasan yang adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Abdullah Md Yunos lwn. Pertubuhan Alumni UKM
(Roslan Mat Nor) [2010] 1 ILR 195

Kontrak untuk tempoh masa yang tetap - Kontrak perkhidmatan pertama YM - Terma dan syaratnya - Sama ada terdapat terma berkenaan umur persaraan didalamnya - Kesannya - YM kemudiannya diberikan kontrak perkhidmatan yang baru untuk tempoh masa setahun - YM menerima kontrak perkhidmatan kedua tersebut - Sama ada YM sedar akan terma mengenai umur persaraan dalam kontrak kedua tersebut – Bukti yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada syarikat telah mengubah kontrak perkhidmatan YM secara unilateral - Sama ada prinsip-prinsip keadilan sosial telah dipatuhi - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan dengan sebab yang adil dan munasabah - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Kamaruddin Syed Omar lwn. YTL Technologies Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Rosli Mohd Sham) [2010] 1 ILR 208

Kontrak untuk tempoh masa yang tetap - Sama ada YM mempunyai pengetahuan tentang apa yang ditandatanganinya dalam kontrak kedua - Kelakuan YM - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan dengan sebab yang adil dan munasabah - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Kamaruddin Syed Omar lwn. YTL Technologies Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Rosli Mohd Sham) [2010] 1 ILR 208

Salahlaku - YM bertengkar dengan pelanggan syarikat - Sama ada dibuktikan oleh syarikat - Bukti yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Kelakuan pelanggan syarikat - Kesannya - Sama ada syarikat telah menyumbang kepada salahlaku tersebut - Faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Sama ada YM telah melakukan salahlaku tersebut - Sama ada salahlaku tersebut mewajibkan YM dibuang kerja - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM terlalu berat - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan atas alasan yang adil dan munasabah - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Mohd Rizal Kanabathi Abdullah lwn. Allson Genesis Hotel
(Ahmad Rosli Mohd Sham) [2010] 1 ILR 216

Salahlaku - YM bertengkar dengan pelanggan syarikat - YM enggan mengangkat beg pelanggan - Tugas YM - Kesannya - Industri syarikat - Apa yang diharapkan oleh pelanggan syarikat - Sama ada kelakuan YM telah menjejaskan tanggapan pelanggan syarikat - Kesannya - Sama ada pihak pengurusan syarikat telah menyumbang kepada salahlaku tersebut - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan munasabah - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Mohd Rizal Kanabathi Abdullah lwn. Allson Genesis Hotel
(Ahmad Rosli Mohd Sham) [2010] 1 ILR 216