The appellant initially filed a suit against the respondent in the Industrial Court claiming for wrongful dismissal by the respondent company. It was the appellant's case that he worked with the respondent company as a plant executive in the production department since 1996 and thereafter, he was transferred to the position as a store executive in 2005. The appellant refused to accept the said transfer as he felt that it was a demotion which would have ultimately driven him into resignation. He also contended that it was a move engineered by the respondent's assistant general manager, who had a dislike for the appellant due to past work related incidents. The basis of the appellant's claim was that he had been in the production department for more than nine years and he was never familiar with the work at the store. Further, he claimed that the work at the store would carry lesser functions and responsibilities with only three store hands as compared to when he was in the production department with around 30 personnel working under him. The Industrial Court allowed the appellant's claim and ruled that the appellant's transfer from the post of plant executive to the post of store executive amounted to constructive dismissal as well as a fundamental breach of the appellant's contract of service with the respondent company. As such, the appellant was awarded backwages in the sum of RM81,240 and compensation in lieu of reinstatement. Dissatisfied with this decision, the respondent applied to the High Court for judicial review seeking the issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the Industrial Court's award. The High Court granted the respondent's application wherein it was held that the Industrial Court had committed errors of law which warranted intervention. Hence this appeal by the appellant. The respondent company submitted that the appellant never considered himself as being constructively dismissed as he left the respondent voluntarily since he had secured a job with another company vide the latter's letter of offer dated 4 April 2005 (`the letter').

Held (setting aside order of High Court; restoring order of Industrial Court with variation to the award for backwages)

Per Hishamudin Mohd Yunus JCA delivering the judgment of the court:

(1) The transfer was a disguised demotion of the appellant and a fundamental breach of the appellant's contract of employment with the respondent company. It was obvious from the evidence that there was an ulterior motive for the transfer, meaning that it was not a bona fide transfer. The post at the store was an inferior post as compared to the post of a plant executive. Further, there was a strained relationship between the appellant and the respondent's assistant general manager, who had quite openly showed his strong feeling of dislike for the appellant and was the personnel behind the transfer. (paras 23 & 25)

(2) The appellant joined another company upon the expiration of the seven days' notice that he gave to the respondent company. As such, having considered himself constructively dismissed, the appellant had to look for another job as he had a family to support and financial commitments to meet. What the appellant did was what any reasonable man would have done under the circumstances. It would be a grave injustice to deny the appellant of his right to consider himself as having been wronged and constructively dismissed merely on the basis of the letter. (para 31)

(3) The courts had always held that such disguised demotion amounts to constructive dismissal and that it also amounts to a fundamental breach of contract on the employer's part entitling the employee to resign (Quah Swee Khoon v. Sime Darby Bhd; refd). Given the facts and the evidence, there was nothing unreasonable about the Industrial Court's decision. Hence, the decision ought not to have been disturbed by the High Court as there was no basis for judicial review. (paras 8, 26 & 28)

[A sum of RM12,600 to be deducted from the Industrial Court's award for backwages as there was evidence to the effect that upon ceasing employment with the respondent company, the appellant was employed for three months at another company].

Bahasa Malaysia Translation Of Headnotes

Perayu telah pada mulanya memfailkan tindakan terhadap responden di Mahkamah Perusahaan di mana tuntutannya adalah pemecatan salah oleh syarikat responden. Adalah kes perayu bahawa beliau telah bekerja sebagai eksekutif kilang di bahagian pengeluaran sejak 1996 dan selepas itu, perayu telah dipindah ke pangkat eksekutif setor pada tahun 2005. Perayu enggan menerima pemindahan tersebut kerana beliau berasa ianya merupakan suatu penurunan pangkat untuk mendorongnya meletak jawatan. Perayu juga berhujah bahawa ianya merupakan suatu muslihat yang diatur oleh penolong pengurus besar responden, yang tidak menyukai responden disebabkan oleh insiden lampau berkaitan dengan kerja. Asas tuntutan perayu adalah bahawa beliau telah berkhidmat di bahagian pengeluaran untuk lebih daripada sembilan tahun dan tidak biasa dengan kerja di setor. Lagipun, perayu menuntut bahawa kerja di setor mempunyai kekurangan tugas dan tanggungjawab dengan hanya tiga kakitangan setor berbanding dengan bahagian pengeluaran yang mempunyai 30 kakitangan yang telah bekerja di bawahnya. Mahkamah Perusahaan telah membenarkan tuntutan perayu dengan memutuskan bahawa pemindahan perayu daripada jawatan eksekutif kilang ke jawatan eksekutif setor merupakan pembuangan kerja secara konstruktif dan juga sebagai kemungkiran dasar kontrak perkhidmatan dengan syarikat responden. Oleh itu, perayu diawardkan gaji tertunggak sebanyak RM81,240 dan pampasan sebagai ganti rugi pengambilan semula. Tidak puas hati dengan keputusan tersebut, responden telah memohon ke Mahkamah Tinggi untuk semakan kehakiman dalam mengeluarkan writ certiorari bagi membatalkan award Mahkamah Perusahaan. Mahkamah Tinggi membenarkan permohonan responden di mana ianya telah diputuskan bahawa Mahkamah Perusahaan telah khilaf dari segi undang-undang yang mewajarkan campurtangan. Oleh itu rayuan ini oleh perayu. Syarikat responden berhujah bahawa perayu tidak menganggap dirinya sebagai telah dibuang kerja secara konstruktif memandangkan perayu telah meninggalkan responden secara sukarela kerana telah berjaya mendapat kerja di syarikat lain melalui surat tawaran syarikat tersebut bertarikh 4 April 2005 (`surat').

Keputusan (mengenepikan perintah Mahkamah Tinggi; mengekalkan perintah Mahkamah Perusahaan dengan variasi kepada award untuk gaji tertunggak)

Oleh Hishamudin Mohd Yunus HMR menyampaikan penghakiman mahkamah:

(1) Pemindahan itu merupakan satu penyamaran penurunan pangkat perayu dan kemungkiran asas kontrak pekerjaan perayu dengan syarikat responden. Adalah jelas daripada keterangan bahawa terdapat motif tersembunyi untuk pemindahan, yang bermakna bahawa ianya bukanlah pemindahan bona fide. Pangkat di setor adalah pangkat rendah berbanding dengan pangkat eksekutif kilang. Tambahan pula, terdapat perhubungan tegang di antara perayu dan penolong pengurus besar responden, yang telah secara terbuka menunjuk rasa tidak puas hati dengan perayu dan merupakan orang yang bertanggungjawab di sebalik pemindahan itu.

(2) Perayu telah mula bekerja di syarikat lain selepas tamatnya notis tujuh hari yang telah diberi olehnya kepada syarikat responden. Oleh itu, setelah mendapati dirinya dibuang kerja secara konstruktif, perayu terpaksa mencari kerja lain memandangkan beliau mempunyai keluarga untuk menyokong dan komitmen kewangan untuk dipenuhi. Apa yang dilakukan oleh perayu adalah sesuatu yang akan dilakukan oleh sesiapa yang munasabah di dalam keadaan sebegitu. Ianya tidak adil untuk perayu dinafikan hak untuk menganggap dirinya sebagai telah disalahkan dan dibuang kerja secara konstruktif atas dasar surat itu.

(3) Mahkamah telah selalunya memutuskan bahawa penyamaran penurunan pangkat sebegitu merupakan pembuangan kerja konstruktif dan ia juga merupakan kemungkiran asas kontrak bagi pihak majikan yang menyebabkan pekerja meletak jawatan (Quah Swee Khoon v. Sime Darby Bhd; dirujuk). Dengan adanya fakta dan keterangan, tiada apa-apa yang tidak munasabah berkenaan keputusan Mahkamah Perusahaan. Oleh itu, keputusan itu tidak sepatutnya diganggu oleh Mahkamah Tinggi kerana tiada dasar bagi semakan kehakiman.

[Jumlah sebanyak RM12,600 perlu ditolak daripada award Mahkamah Perusahaan bagi gaji tertunggak memandangkan terdapat keterangan bahawa setelah berhenti kerja dengan syarikat responden, perayu telah bekerja selama tiga bulan di syarikat lain].

Case(s) referred to:

Non-metallic Mineral Products Manufacturing Employees Union & Ors v. South East Asia Fire Bricks Sdn Bhd [1976] 2 MLJ 67 (refd)

Quah Swee Khoon v. Sime Darby Bhd [2001] 1 CLJ 9 CA (refd)

Wong Chee Hong v. Cathay Organisation (M) Sdn Bhd [1988] 1 CLJ 45; [1988] 1 CLJ (Rep) 298 SC (refd)

Legislation referred to:

Rules of the High Court 1980, O. 53

Counsel:

For the appellant - CV Devan; M/s CV Devan & Co

For the respondent - Balan Nair; M/s Seah Balan Ravi & Co

[Editor's note: For the High Court judgment, please see GPA Plastic Industries Sdn Bhd v. Mahkamah Perusahaan Malaysia & Anor [2011] 1 LNS 51.]

Reported by Kumitha Abdul Majid