ILR_Bulletin_07

AWARD	PARTIES	PAGE
	Robin Tan Pang Heng Abdullah (Mendakwa Sebagai Pegawai Awam Penang Turf Club) v. Ketua Pengarah Kesatuan Sekerja Malaysia & Anor [Civil Appeal No: P-02-72-2001]	[2010] 3 ILR 1
	Tang Sung Teck v. Chin Lian Long Motor Vehicle Co Bhd [Judicial Review No: JR-3-2009-III]	[2010] 3 ILR 9
602/2010	Wan Md Husni Wan Husain v. ZFI Marketing Sdn Bhd [Case No: 2(29)(16)/4-2064/04]	[2010] 3 ILR 24
617/2010	Krishanan Mairathimuthu v. Hotel Excelsior (M) Sdn Bhd [Case No: 10/4-106/07]	[2010] 3 ILR 40
621/2010	Lai Choon Fong v. LG Electronics (M) Sdn Bhd [Case No: 26/4-2026/07]	[2010] 3 ILR 53
632/2010	Azim Abu Bakar lwn. Pelepas Logistics Services Sdn Bhd [No. Kes: MP.1: 29(16)/4-2752/04]	[2010] 3 ILR 82
635/2010	Azilan Shahruddin lwn. Shangri-La Hotel (KL) Sdn Bhd [No. Kes: 11/4-1683/07]	[2010] 3 ILR 98
640/2010	Bumihiway (M) Sdn Bhd v. Jamaluddin Yaacob [Case No: 13/4-241/2005]	[2010] 3 ILR 121
642/2010	Abdul Jalil Ali & Yang Lain v. Philips Malaysia Sdn Bhd [Case No: 27(1)(4)/4-1750/06]	[2010] 3 ILR 130
661/2010	Reckitt Benckiser (M) Sdn Bhd v. Yen York Fong [Case No. 12(15)/4-423/04]	[2010] 3 ILR 144
664/2010	Azhari Mohd Sohor v. UMW Toyota Motor Sdn Bhd [Case No: 25/4–1266/06]	[2010] 3 ILR 164
667/2010	Abdul Rahim Abdullah lwn. Qatar Airways [No. Kes: 16(11)/4-1013/05]	[2010] 3 ILR 213

Judicial review - Registration of trade union - Members of union were workers of Penang Turf Club - Whether members casual workers and therefore could not be represented by union - Whether Director General of Trade Union acted ultra vires in registering union - Whether judicial review premature given alternative remedy under s. 71A Trade Unions Act 1959
Robin Tan Pang Heng Abdullah (Mendakwa Sebagai Pegawai Awam Penang Turf Club) v. Ketua Pengarah Kesatuan Sekerja Malaysia & Anor
(James Foong JCA, Zainun Ali JCA & Sulong Matjeraie JCA) [2010] 3 ILR 1

Action - Judicial review - Registration of trade union - Members of union were workers of Penang Turf Club - Whether members casual workers and therefore could not be represented by union - Whether Director General of Trade Union acted ultra vires in registering union - Whether judicial review premature given alternative remedy under s. 71A Trade Unions Act 1959
Robin Tan Pang Heng Abdullah (Mendakwa Sebagai Pegawai Awam Penang Turf Club) v. Ketua Pengarah Kesatuan Sekerja Malaysia & Anor
(James Foong JCA, Zainun Ali JCA & Sulong Matjeraie JCA) [2010] 3 ILR 1

Constructive dismissal - Assault - Claimant alleging assault and battery by the company's representatives - Claimant lodging police report - Effect of - Whether the claimant had managed to prove it against the company - Evidence tendered by the claimant - Whether it had been sufficient - Effect of - Whether it had constituted a fundamental breach of his terms of employment - Whether it had justified the claimant deeming himself constructively dismissed and walking out of his employment - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Wan Md Husni Wan Husain v. ZFI Marketing Sdn Bhd
(Mariah Ahmad) [2010] 3 ILR 24

Constructive dismissal - Change in job functions - Job functions - Claimant sent out to buy food for COW2 and to collect COW2's staff purchase - Claimant not complying - Whether it had been within the claimant's job scope - Work culture of the company - Claimant issued a warning letter - Whether the claimant should have been issued a warning letter - Position held by the claimant in the company - Whether she had been COW2's Personal Assistant - Effect of - Whether the company had committed a fundamental breach which had gone to the root of the employment contract between the parties - Effect of - Whether constructive dismissal had successfully been proven by the claimant - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Reckitt Benckiser (M) Sdn Bhd v. Yen York Fong
(Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz) [2010] 3 ILR 144

Constructive dismissal - Change in job functions - Job functions of the claimant - Claimant instructed to do daily filing of documents by COW2 - Whether the claimant had complied with such instructions - Effect of - Evidence adduced by the parties - Effect of - Claimant issued a warning letter - Actions taken by the company thereafter - Whether the company's actions had been bona fide - Whether the company had committed a fundamental breach which had gone to the root of the employment contract between the parties - Effect of - Whether constructive dismissal had successfully been proven by the claimant - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Reckitt Benckiser (M) Sdn Bhd v. Yen York Fong
(Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz) [2010] 3 ILR 144

Constructive dismissal - Claimant reporting back to work after a memorandum of agreement executed between the parties - Claimant placed in a room far away from the office without any facilities and not given any work to do - Claimant lodging a written complaint - Effect of - Senior officers of the company slapping and/or attempting to slap the claimant - Claimant walking out of his employment and claiming constructive dismissal - Evidence tendered by the claimant - Whether it had been sufficient to prove constructive dismissal - Effect of - Whether the company by its actions had indicated an intention to no longer be bound by the claimant's contract of employment - Evidence tendered - Whether it had been sufficient - Effect of - Whether it had constituted a fundamental breach of his terms of employment - Whether it had justified the claimant deeming himself constructively dismissed - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Wan Md Husni Wan Husain v. ZFI Marketing Sdn Bhd
(Mariah Ahmad) [2010] 3 ILR 24

Constructive dismissal - Hours of work - Claimant coming in late to work - Whether it had been an off-day - Effect of - Reasons as to why the claimant had been late to work - Whether there had been a genuine miscommunication as to when the claimant was supposed to have come in - Effect of - Claimant issued a warning letter - Whether the claimant coming in late had justified the issuance of a warning letter by the company - Whether the company had committed a fundamental breach which had gone to the root of the employment contract between the parties - Effect of - Whether constructive dismissal had successfully been proven by the claimant - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Reckitt Benckiser (M) Sdn Bhd v. Yen York Fong
(Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz) [2010] 3 ILR 144

Constructive dismissal - Transfer - Claimant transferred to Resource Pool due to reorganization of the company - Whether the reorganization of the company had been done bona fide - Whether the claimant had been forewarned about her transfer - Effect of - Whether the claimant had been singled out and victimized - Evidence adduced by the claimant - Whether the company by its conduct had evinced an intention to no longer be bound by the contract of employment - Effect of - Whether the claimant had successfully proven constructive dismissal - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 13(3)(b), 20(3) & 30(5)
Reckitt Benckiser (M) Sdn Bhd v. Yen York Fong
(Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz) [2010] 3 ILR 144

Insubordination - Claimant failing to carry out superior's instructions and issue verbal warnings to employees - Effect of - Reasons given by the claimant - Whether they had been acceptable - Evidence adduced by the company and the claimant - Whether the company's actions had been reasonable - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Lai Choon Fong v. LG Electronics (M) Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh) [2010] 3 ILR 53

Insubordination - Claimant failing to submit his report on the AR in time - Effect of - Claimant claiming he had needed more time - Whether he had informed the company that he had needed more time - Effect of - What the claimant should have done under the circumstances - Evidence adduced by the company - Effect of - Whether the claimant's conduct had been insubordinate - Whether the company had managed to establish the misconduct against the claimant - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Lai Choon Fong v. LG Electronics (M) Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh) [2010] 3 ILR 53

Insubordination - Claimant shouting at his superior - Whether it had been established by the company - Effect of - Evidence adduced by the company - Whether sufficient to satisfy its burden of proof - Effect of - Whether the claimant's behaviour had constituted insubordination - Effect of - Whether it had managed to prove the charge against the claimant - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Lai Choon Fong v. LG Electronics (M) Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh) [2010] 3 ILR 53

Insubordination - Whether the claimant had been aware of and been responsible for the AR - Evidence adduced by the claimant and the company - Actions taken by the claimant - Whose responsibility the AR had been - Effect of - Whether the company had managed to prove this charge against the claimant - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Lai Choon Fong v. LG Electronics (M) Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh) [2010] 3 ILR 53

Misconduct - Claimant allegedly abusing his position as the head of the spare parts division - Company suffering losses - Whether the claimant had been aware of the discrepancies - Evidence adduced by the claimant - Whether the charge had been proven by the company - Effect of - Evidence adduced by the company - Responsibilities of the claimant - Whether he had been responsible for the spare parts shortage - Whether the claimant had contravened the standard operating procedure of the company - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Azhari Mohd Sohor v. UMW Toyota Motor Sdn Bhd
(Jalaldin Hussain) [2010] 3 ILR 164

Misconduct - Claimant charged with working elsewhere during the company's working hours - Evidence adduced by the company - The quality of the company's evidence - Effect of - Whether it had been sufficient to prove the charges against the claimant - Effect of - Whether the company had managed to discharge its burden of proof - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Krishanan Mairathimuthu v. Hotel Excelsior (M) Sdn Bhd
(Fredrick Indran X A Nicholas) [2010] 3 ILR 40

Misconduct - Claimant collecting PDC despite the AR not being in a healthy state - Whether the claimant had intended to mislead the management of the company - Effect of - Evidence adduced by both parties - Whether the relationship of trust and confidence had been broken - Effect of - Fiduciary relationship between the claimant and the company - Whether the company had to show that it had suffered financial loss - Position held by the claimant in the company - Whether the company's action of terminating him had been reasonable under the circumstances - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Lai Choon Fong v. LG Electronics (M) Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh) [2010] 3 ILR 53

Retrenchment - Redundancy - Claimants retrenched - Claimants paid compensation - Effect of - Evidence adduced by the company - Actions taken by the company - Whether the company had kept within the spirit and intent of the Employment (Termination & Lay-Off Benefits) Regulations 1980 - Effect of - Whether the company's actions had shown a mala fide intent - Effect of - Whether a redundancy situation had existed - Whether proven by the company - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) and The Employment (Termination & Lay-Off Benefits) Regulations 1980
Abdul Jalil Ali & Yang Lain v. Philips Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Mary Shakila Azariah) [2010] 3 ILR 130

Retrenchment - Redundancy - Company reorganizing and restructuring its PBC Unit - Claimants retrenched due to such reorganization - Company still profitable - Whether that showed mala fide intent on the retrenchment exercise carried out - Effect of - Evidence adduced by the claimant - Whether the evidence had established vitiating circumstances which had been mala fide, arbitrary, capricious or an act of victimization - Effect of - Whether the company's actions were bona fide - Whether the claimants had possessed the necessary skills to be transferred within the company and its group - Effect of - Whether a redundancy situation had existed in the PBC Unit - Whether proven by the company - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Abdul Jalil Ali & Yang Lain v. Philips Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Mary Shakila Azariah) [2010] 3 ILR 130

Charges - Whether the claimant had known the charges brought against him - Claimant admitting to the charges - Effect of - Claimant claiming that documents and exhibits not brought to his attention - Whether it had deprived him of an opportunity to effectively defend himself and present his case - Whether it had been against the rules of natural justice - Effect of - Whether it had rendered the DI irregular and improper - Whether the decision of the DI had been perverse - Whether the DI had been defective - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Azhari Mohd Sohor v. UMW Toyota Motor Sdn Bhd
(Jalaldin Hussain) [2010] 3 ILR 164

Findings - Whether the company had managed to discharge its burden of proving the charges against the claimant - Conduct of the DI proceedings - Whether it had been fatally flawed - Whether the decision arrived at had been perverse - Effect of - Whether the DI had been valid - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Krishanan Mairathimuthu v. Hotel Excelsior (M) Sdn Bhd
(Fredrick Indran X A Nicholas) [2010] 3 ILR 40

Procedural impropriety - Whether the claimant had been given the proper right to be heard - Whether the claimant had been aware of the charges brought against him before the DI - Effect of - Conduct of the DI - Whether it had been against the rules of natural justice - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Lai Choon Fong v. LG Electronics (M) Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh) [2010] 3 ILR 53

Documentary evidence - Findings of the DI - Claimant signing on every page of the notes - Claimant admitting that answers given at the DI had been his - Effect of - Whether the notes had been an accurate reflection of what had transpired - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Azhari Mohd Sohor v. UMW Toyota Motor Sdn Bhd
(Jalaldin Hussain) [2010] 3 ILR 164

Procedure - Action - Stay application - Whether the Industrial Court had the inherent jurisdiction to grant a stay of proceedings - Evaluation of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Effect of - Aim of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Bumihiway (M) Sdn Bhd v. Jamaluddin Yaacob
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye) [2010] 3 ILR 121

Remedies - Backwages - Contingent allowances - Whether should be factored into the calculation of backwages - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether backwages should be based on fixed sums paid per month - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Krishanan Mairathimuthu v. Hotel Excelsior (M) Sdn Bhd
(Fredrick Indran X A Nicholas) [2010] 3 ILR 40

Remedies - Reinstatement - Claimant praying for reinstatement - Whether that would be the appropriate remedy to award under the circumstances - Factors to consider - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Wan Md Husni Wan Husain v. ZFI Marketing Sdn Bhd
(Mariah Ahmad) [2010] 3 ILR 24

Remedies - Reinstatement - Claimant seeking reinstatement - Whether it had been appropriate under the circumstances - Factors to consider - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Krishanan Mairathimuthu v. Hotel Excelsior (M) Sdn Bhd
(Fredrick Indran X A Nicholas) [2010] 3 ILR 40

Employment - Dismissal - Misconduct - Allegations of - Whether proved - Whether applicant was 'unreasonable, discourteous and difficult' - Whether unauthorized interview given by applicant to the press considered a serious misconduct - Whether there was evidence of victimization of applicant - Whether applicant's misconduct justified extreme punishment of summary dismissal - Whether Industrial Court erred in its findings
Tang Sung Teck v. Chin Lian Long Motor Vehicle Co Bhd
(Ravinthran Paramaguru JC) [2010] 3 ILR 9

Trade union - Registration - Judicial review - Members of union were workers of Penang Turf Club - Whether members casual workers and therefore could not be represented by union - Whether Director General of Trade Union acted ultra vires in registering union - Whether judicial review premature given alternative remedy under s. 71A Trade Unions Act 1959
Robin Tan Pang Heng Abdullah (Mendakwa Sebagai Pegawai Awam Penang Turf Club) v. Ketua Pengarah Kesatuan Sekerja Malaysia & Anor
(James Foong JCA, Zainun Ali JCA & Sulong Matjeraie JCA) [2010] 3 ILR 1

Clubs - Registration of trade union - Members of union were workers of Penang Turf Club - Whether members casual workers and could not be represented by union - Whether Director General of Trade Union acted ultra vires in registering union - Whether judicial review premature given alternative remedy under s. 71A Trade Unions Act 1959
Robin Tan Pang Heng Abdullah (Mendakwa Sebagai Pegawai Awam Penang Turf Club) v. Ketua Pengarah Kesatuan Sekerja Malaysia & Anor
(James Foong JCA, Zainun Ali JCA & Sulong Matjeraie JCA) [2010] 3 ILR 1

"may" - Section 71A Trade Unions Act 1959 in para after provision (l) - Interpretation of - Whether appellant given option to appeal to relevant Minister against decision of Director General of Trade Unions and not a right to apply for judicial review
Robin Tan Pang Heng Abdullah (Mendakwa Sebagai Pegawai Awam Penang Turf Club) v. Ketua Pengarah Kesatuan Sekerja Malaysia & Anor
(James Foong JCA, Zainun Ali JCA & Sulong Matjeraie JCA) [2010] 3 ILR 1

Beban pembuktian - Sama ada hotel berjaya membuktikan salahlaku YM - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Keterangan pandang dengar - Sama ada memadai untuk membuktikan salahlaku YM - Kesannya - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 30(5)
Azilan Shahruddin lwn. Shangri-La Hotel (KL) Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Rosli Mohd Sham) [2010] 3 ILR 98

Saksi - Syarikat responden gagal untuk memanggil dua orang saksi - Sama ada itu secara automatik menarik peruntukan s. 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 - Kesannya - Keadaan dalam mana peruntukan s. 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 adalah terpakai - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan atas alasan yang adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) dan Akta Keterangan 1950, s. 114(g)
Abdul Rahim Abdullah lwn. Qatar Airways
(Abd Rahman Abdol) [2010] 3 ILR 213

Bidangkuasa - Sama ada mahkamah perusahaan di Malaysia mempunyai bidangkuasa untuk mendengar kes ini - Responden diperbadankan di Qatar - Kesannya - Kandungan kontrak pekerjaan antara responden dengan YM - Kesannya - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3) dan Akta Syarikat 1965, s. 322(1)
Abdul Rahim Abdullah lwn. Qatar Airways
(Abd Rahman Abdol) [2010] 3 ILR 213

Ketidakpatuhan terhadap polisi syarikat responden - YM gagal untuk mematuhi prosedur tetap responden - Sama ada YM telah melakukan salahlaku - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Sama ada mencukupi untuk membuktikan salahlaku YM - Kesannya - Jawatan yang dipegang oleh YM dalam syarikat responden - Sama ada perhubungan antara majikan dan pekerja telah terjejas - Kesannya - Sama ada tindakan syarikat responden membuang kerja YM adalah munasabah - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan atas alasan yang adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Abdul Rahim Abdullah lwn. Qatar Airways
(Abd Rahman Abdol) [2010] 3 ILR 213

Pemecatan secara konstruktif - Gaji - YM tidak menerima kenaikan gaji - Sama ada kontrak perkhidmatan beliau mewajibkan syarikat memberikannya kenaikan gaji setiap tahun - Kesannya - Sebabnya kenaikan gaji tidak diberikan kepada YM - Sama ada tindakan syarikat tersebut menunjukkan niatnya untuk tidak lagi meneruskan dengan kontrak perkhidmatan YM - Sama ada dibuktikan oleh YM - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Azim Abu Bakar lwn. Pelepas Logistics Services Sdn Bhd
(Samsudin Hassan) [2010] 3 ILR 82

Pemecatan secara konstruktif - Pertukaran dalam fungsi pekerjaan YM - Bila dibangkitkan oleh YM - Sama ada masa yang diambil oleh YM untuk membangkitkannya merupakan "condonation" - Kesannya - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967
Azim Abu Bakar lwn. Pelepas Logistics Services Sdn Bhd
(Samsudin Hassan) [2010] 3 ILR 82

Pemecatan secara konstruktif - Pertukaran dalam fungsi pekerjaan YM - Pencapaian kerja YM tidak memuaskan - Surat amaran dikeluarkan - Sama ada syarikat berhak mengeluarkan surat amaran - Kesannya - Syarikat menyenaraikan dan mengatur semula skop pekerjaan YM - Sama ada dilakukan secara bona fide - Kesannya - Hanya "reporting line" YM diubah - Kesannya - Sama ada perubahan dalam "reporting line" YM merupakan suatu "demotion" - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Sama ada tindakan syarikat merupakan perlanggaran yang melibatkan asas kontrak antara mereka - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Azim Abu Bakar lwn. Pelepas Logistics Services Sdn Bhd
(Samsudin Hassan) [2010] 3 ILR 82

Salahlaku - YM dituduh menghasut pekerja sambilan untuk melakukan boikot - Bukti yang dikemukakan oleh hotel - Kesannya - Sama ada hotel berjaya memenuhi beban buktinya - Kesannya - Sama ada pihak hotel telah menunjukkan hasrat atau niatnya untuk tidak lagi ingin meneruskan kontrak perkhidmatan dengan YM - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan munasabah - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Azilan Shahruddin lwn. Shangri-La Hotel (KL) Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Rosli Mohd Sham) [2010] 3 ILR 98

Dapatan - Sama ada keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh hotel menyokong dapatan DI - Kesannya - Jenis keterangan yang dikemukakan - Sama ada keterangan pandang dengar adalah memadai - Kesannya - Sama ada terdapat unsur "bias" dalam cara dapatan DI diputuskan - Kesannya - Sama ada DI tersebut merupakan satu inkuiri yang saksama atau "due inquiry" - Kesannya - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 30(5)
Azilan Shahruddin lwn. Shangri-La Hotel (KL) Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Rosli Mohd Sham) [2010] 3 ILR 98

Kesilapan prosidur - Sama ada wujud - Proses yang diikuti oleh panel DI - Sama ada mengikuti prinsip natural justice - Kesannya - Sama ada DI tersebut telah dijalankan secara teratur - Kesannya - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 30(5)
Azilan Shahruddin lwn. Shangri-La Hotel (KL) Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Rosli Mohd Sham) [2010] 3 ILR 98

Kesilapan prosidur - YM tidak dibenarkan hadir semasa siasatan dijalankan - Kesannya - Tiada minit lengkap disimpan mengenai siasatan tersebut - Syarikat responden menganggap siasatan tersebut sebagai siasatan dalaman - Kesannya - Sama ada siasatan dalaman yang dijalankan itu melanggar prinsip keadilan asasi - Kesannya - Sama ada kecacatan dalam menjalankan siasatan dalaman dengan sendirinya membuktikan bahawa YM telah dibuang kerja tanpa alasan yang adil dan munasabah - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan atas alasan yang adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Abdul Rahim Abdullah lwn. Qatar Airways
(Abd Rahman Abdol) [2010] 3 ILR 213

New This Week	1. ILR Articles
	2. ILR Issue 7 of 2010