INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA

CASE NO. 12/4-1618/07

BETWEEN

INFORMATICS COMPUTER CENTRE SDN. BHD

AND

ENG NGUIE HEOK

AWARD NO. 308 OF 2010

Before : Y.A. TUAN GULAM MUHIADDEEN - CHAIRMAN

BIN ABDUL AZIZ

Venue : Industrial Court, Malaysia

Kuala Lumpur

Date of Reference : 5.6.2007

Dates of Mention : 28.09.2007; 05.02.2008; 05.05.2008;

09.06.2008; 04.12.2009

Dates of Hearing : 8.10.2009; 9.10.2009

Representation : Mr. Shariffullah Majeed from Messrs Jeevaretnam

& Co., Counsel for the Claimant

Ms. Joyce Joan Fernandez from Messrs J.J.

Fernandez & Associates, Counsel for the
Company

Reference:

This is a reference made under section 20(3) of the Industrial

Relations Act 1967 arising out of the dismissal of ENG
NGUIE HEOK (“the Claimant”) by INFORMATICS COMPUTER
CENTRE SDN. BHD. (“the Company”).

1
 AWARD

This is a reference made under section 20(3) of the Industrial

Relations Act 1967 arising out of the dismissal of Eng Nguie Heok
(“the Claimant”) by Informatics Computer Centre Sdn. Bhd.
(“The Company”) on 1 December 2006.

Brief Facts

The Claimant commenced employment with the Company on

15th July 1991 as a Lecturer cum CAG Director based at the
Company's Centre at Melaka. Her primary job functions were to give
lectures and also develop courses conducted by the Company. Her
scope of work as stated in her Letter of Employment includes;

(a) design, plan lecture and sustain all courses assigned to

her;

(b) Perform course-ware development as well as

undertaking on-going improvement and enhancement;

(c) prepare, plan, conduct and mark student theory, and

practical assignments and ensure documentation
conformance;

(d) Anticipate potential shortcomings and problems, suggest

corrective actions and implement them;

(e) Students counselling and assist in course administration

if necessary, and

2
 (f) Implements projects as required by the Company .

On 4 November 2006, the Company issued a letter of

retrenchment informing the Claimant that as a result of the
restructuring and reorganisation of the Company's overall operations,
her position has become redundant. The Claimant was not paid any
retrenchment benefits.

The Issues

The main issue before the Court is whether the Claimant was
dismissed for just cause or excuse. To ascertain this, it is incumbent
upon this Court to consider the following;

(i) did the redundancy situation arise leading to the

Claimant retrenchment in this case; and

(ii) If there was a redundancy situation, was the

consequential retrenchment made in compliance or in
conformity with accepted standards of procedure.

The Law

The law on retrenchment is now well settled. The function of

the Industrial Court in a reference under s.20 of the Industrial
Relations Act 1967 has been clearly stated by the Federal Court in
the case of Goon Kwee Phoy v. J & P Coats (M) Sdn. Bhd. [1981]
2 MLJ 129 where His Lordship Raja Azlan Shah, CJ (Malaya) (as he
then was) stated at p. 136:-

3
 “Where representations are made and are referred to
the Industrial Court for enquiry, it is the duty of that
Court to determine whether the termination or
dismissal is with or without just cause or excuse. If the
employer chooses to give a reason for the action taken
by him the duty of the Industrial Court will be to enquire
whether that excuse or reason has or has not been
made out. If it finds as a fact that it has not been
proved, then the inevitable conclusion must be that the
termination or dismissal was without just cause or
excuse. The proper enquiry of the Court is the reason
advanced by it and that Court or the High Court cannot
go into another reason not relied on by the employer or
find one for it.”

Redundancy does not necessarily mean that the job or work no

longer exists. At p. 121 of his book “Industrial Relations in
Malaysia”, Dunston Ayadurai had defined redundancy as follows:

“Redundancy refers to a surplus of labour and is normally

the result of a reorganisation of the business of an
employer, and its usual consequence is retrenchment,
i.e. the termination by the employer of those employees
found to be surplus to his requirements after the
reorganisation. Thus, there must first be redundancy or
surplus of labour before there can be retrenchment or
termination of the surplus”.

The law recognises that a company has the right to organise

its business in the manner it considers best. However in doing
so, the company must act bona fide and not capriciously or with
motives of victimisation or unfair labour practices.

4
 In the Court of Appeal case of William Jacks & Company (M)
Sdn. Bhd. v. S. Balasingam [1997] 3 CLJ 235. His Lordship
Gopal Sri Ram JCA had this to say:-

“Whether the retrenchment exercise in a particular case

is bona fide or otherwise, is a question of fact and of
degree depending for its resolution upon the peculiar
facts and circumstances of each case. It is well settled
that an employer is entitled to organize its business in
the manner he considers best. So long as that
managerial power is exercised bona fide, the decision is
immune from examination even by the Industrial Court.
However, the Industrial Court is empowered, and indeed
duty-bound, to investigate the facts and circumstances
of a particular case to determine whether that exercise
of power was in face bona fide”.

Retrenchment in its ordinary acceptation connotes that the

business itself is being continued but that a portion of the staff or the
labour force is discharged as surplus.

In the Court of Appeal case of Harris Solid State (M) Sdn.

Bhd. & Anor v. Bruno Gentil Pereira & Anor [1996] 4 CLJ 747.
His Lordship Gopal Sri Ram JCA at p. 767 held that:-

“....An employer may re-organise his commercial

undertaking for any legitimate reason, such as
promoting better economic viability. But he must
not do so for collateral purpose...”

5
 In the case of Stephen Bong v FCB (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor
[1999] 1 LNS 131 the High Court had articulated as thus:-

“It is not the law that redundancy means that the

job or work no longer exists. Redundancy
situation arise when the business required fewer
employer of whatever kind.”

In Firex Sdn Bhd v Ng Shoo Waa [1990] 1 ILR 22, (the

Learned Chairman Steve LK Shim (as he then was) after restating
the principles as found in Ong Lean Phaik v C.F. Sharp &
Company (M) Sdn. Bhd., Penang (1980) 1 ILR 284 stated:-

“....It is well established that it is for management to

decide the strength of its staff which it considers
necessary for efficiency in its undertaking. The
Court will not intervene unless it is shown that the
decision was capricious or without reason or was
mala fide or was actuated by victimisation or unfair
labour practice. Those principles have been
consistently applied by the Industrial Court in
numerous cases.”

It is a settled principle that in selecting employees for

retrenchment an employer should resort to the “last in first out”
rule unless the employer can show sound reasons why they had to
depart from it. Where it is necessary for some employees to be
dismissed because of redundancy the court will require the employee
to show how, by whom and on what basis the selection was made.
See National Union of Cinema & Amusement Workers v. Shaw
Management Services Sdn. Bhd. (Award No. 27 of 1978).

6
 It is trite that the burden of proof lies on the employer to prove
the redundancy. In Bayer (M) Sdn. Bhd. v. Ng Hong Pau [1999]
4 CLJ 155 the Court of Appeal enunciated as follows:

“On redundancy it cannot be gainsaid that the appellant

must come to the Court with concrete proof. The
burden is on the appellant to prove actual redundancy
on which the dismissal was grounded (See Chapman &
Others v. Goonvean & Rostawrack China Clay Company.
Ltd. [1983] 2 All ER 1603).”

The Company's Case

COW1, Wong Wee Woon, the Managing Director of the

International Division Informatics Education Private Limited
Singapore was the only witness who gave evidence on behalf of the
Company. He is also the Director of Informatics Training and
Technology Sdn. Bhd.

COW1 states that the Company was experiencing a down turn

in revenue since 2002. In late 2005 the Company had to make a
decision to downsize and close centers that were not that profitable.
On 20 January 2006, he sent an electronic mail (e-mail) to all the
employees of the Company notifying them that the staffs will be
reassigned to position with enlarged duties and responsibilities and
also that excess staff will be made redundant.

The e-mail (page 3 and 4 of COB) is reproduced as follows:

7
Wong Wee Woon To: Everybody
20/01/2006 01:26 pm cc: Michael Dr Teng/IHL-HQ/SIN/IHL@SINIHL, Cecilia
Tong/IHL-HQ/SIN/IHL@SINIHL, Val
Ortega/IHL-HQ/SIN/IHL@SINIHL
Subject: Consolidation and Rationalisation of Informatics Malaysia

Dear colleagues,

During the 1st week of January, the top management team of

IHL, lead by the CEO Dr Teng, did the MTCO Business
Performance Review for the Financial Year 2006 as well as the
FY 2007 Budget Proposal.

All the Center Managers or their representative took part in this

review and all of them presented their respective centers
performance.

The total MTCO overall FY 2006 outlook is bad with projected

revenue falling far below the budget by 35%, the operating
expenses went way beyond our means thus resulting in a hugh
bottomline loss.

The conclusion reached was that Informatics Malaysia need to

embark on a cost cutting and rationalisation exercise across
ALL Centers which will cover manpower costs, facilities costs
and general and administrative expenses reduction. This
exercise will be applied to MTCO as well.

The MTCO management, have since Jan 2005 been finding

ways and means to reduce the operating expenses by closing
some centers (like Miri, Kajang, Subang Jaya, Taman Tun Dr
Ismail) and downsizing some centers (like Kuching, Ipoh,
Seremban, Melaka, PJ and Klang). Despite all these cost
cutting measures, the operating expenses remained high
against dropping revenue, thus resulting in higher operation
losses.

In this cost cutting and rationalisation exercise we will:

a) seek to remove all duplications of job functions.

b) to flatten the reporting hierarchy structure with tight

streamlining through greater multi-tasking across all
sectors.

This will result in:-

- staff being re-assigned to other positions with enlarged

duties and responsibilities.
- excess staff being made redundant.

8
For a start the Corporate Office of MTCO will be merged with
the KL Center so that the above goals will realised. This new
entity will be named INFORMATICS KL.

In Informatics KL, I will be the Principal Head of the combined

entity while concurrently being the Vice President for
Informatics Malaysia.
All my direct reports will take on more responsibilities in this
merged entity as follows:-

Sales and Marketing:

Victor Chan will now double up as the Sales and Marketing

Director for Informatics KL and concurrently hold the duties of
supervising all the other Centers nationwide.
In this new role Victor will be proposing the new Sales and
Marketing integrated structure for Informatics KL operations.
This plan will announced shortly.

Operations:

Christopher Ng will also double up as the Operations Director of

Informatics KL while concurrently responsible for all the other
Centers operations. He will also be proposing the new
Informatics KL structure soon.

Academic:

Lim Pu Ngan will now be the academic Director for Informatics

KL while also concurrently responsible for the Academic matters
across all the other Centers.
Pui Ngan will also be announcing the new Academic structure
for Informatics KL soon.

For matters relating to HR and Finance, Andrew Ng and Lee

Keat Han will involved as per current practice in Informatics KL
set up.
The Business Directors, Ong Bee Leng and Michael Tee will
continue to provide support to the merged entity as they are
doing currently.

This change will take effect immediately.

Victor, Christopher and Pui Ngan will be talking to all MTCO and
KL Center staff to outline the new structure for Informatics KL
and the accompanying plans going forward.

Further consolidation and rationalisation plans will unfold across

all Centers soon as we strive to reach a breakeven bottomline
for Quarter 4.

Regards
Wee Woon

9
 Through this e-mail, COW1 informed every employee including
the Claimant that the financial outlook of the Company for 2006 was
bad with projected revenue falling below the budget by 35% and
operating expenses escalating beyond the Company's means.

COW1 further states that in 2006 the Company was no more

recruiting new students for enrolment at its centres. The Claimant as
the Centre Manager would have knowledge of the decline in the
student’s enrolment and also the financial viability of the Company.

According to COW1, the Claimant who was the College

Operations Manager from August 2003 and later redesignated as a
Centre Manager in October 2004 and thereafter as Operation
Manager would definitely be aware of the financial standing of the
centre of which they are in charge of whereas, operations manager,
who is a part of the working team of the centre manager and who
reports to the centre manager will be notified of the financial viability
of the centre when the monthly review of the centre is done.

The Claimant was given her letter of cessation of employment

on 4 November 2006 (page 1 of COB), ten months after the above e-
mail was sent out.

The letter is as follows:

Dear Ms. Eng,

CESSATION OF EMPLOYMENT

After a lengthy review by IHL Singapore on the poor

financial performance of Informatics Malaysia recently, the
Group has subsequently decided to carry out the manpower
rationalization exercise.

10
 As a result of the restructuring and reorganization of the
Company's overall operations, your position has become
redundant. Unfortunately, we have no suitable alternative
position for you.

With this, we are serving you 2 months notice with effect

from today. However, the Company has decided to release
you early. Thus your physical last day with the Company
will be on 30 November 2006. Total amounting to
RM3,630.00 will be paid to you at the end of the month via
monthly bank-in to your MBB saving account.

As mutually agreed, the Company will pay the following:

 Salary in lieu of notice - RM3,630.00

 The above payment will be subject to the usual

statutory deductions, such as EPF, SOCSO and
Income Tax. You must also settle all outstanding
loans or advances, which you have taken from the
Company.

Meanwhile, kindly return all keys, identification tag and

documents belonging to the Company to Ms Ong Bee Leng
before your last day of work. (Exit Clearance Form as
attached).

We take this opportunity to thank you for your past services

and would be pleased to provide you with a testimonial, if
you require, to assist you in securing employment
elsewhere.

Yours sincerely,

t.t
…..................
WENDY TAN
Human Resource Manager

COW1 informed the Court that Informatics Malaysia is a wholly

owned subsidiary of Informatics Holding Limited (IHL Singapore) and
IHL Singapore has a right to review the performance of Informatics
Malaysia. It needed to review the performance because it was
running at a huge loss in its business.

11
 The audited reports and financial statements of 2002 (Page 35
of COBS) shows that the Company experience a loss of
RM505,704.00. In year 2003, the Company loss was RM627,221.00
and in year 2004 the loss was RM2,453,396.00 (Page 16 of COB).
The Company continued to experience losses of RM2,616,817.00 in
2005 (Page 35 of COB).

As the Company was experiencing continued losses, COW1

issued the e-mail dated 20 January 2006 which were in reference to
the manpower cost saving measure the Company was implementing.
The said e-mail was sent to all the different departments, i.e. the
Academic, Operations and Sales, for the said departments to revert
with their long term and short term action plan on manpower cost
cutting. All the centers were also told to reduce the manpower
expenses to the range of 35%.

In 2004, the revenue the Company received was

RM9,299,553.00 and the operating expenses was RM7,029,917.00.
In 2005, the revenue was RM6,094,535.00 and the operating
expenses amounted to RM6,933,000.00 (Page 16 and 42 of COB
respectively).

The revenue was dropping significantly and that resulted in the

Company implementing drastic measures to save costs. As the years
went by, the expenses of the Company equalled the revenue the
Company was receiving. This can been seen in the income statement
for 2005 where the revenue was not being able to meet operating
expenses, let alone other expenses involved in running the Company.

Among the measures taken by the Company to reduce

operating expenses was to identified centers that were not profitable
where student volume was minimal. The Company conducted a

12
“teach out” and decided to freeze enrolment so that the centers could
be shut down, thus reducing the cost of operating expenses. The
freezing of enrolment resulted in lesser teaching hours for lecturers
and they had to be retrenched. This exercise was carried out
throughout all centers nationwide.

Even after taking those measures, the operating expenses

remained high against the revenue, this resulting in higher operation
losses. The revenue received in 2006 amounted to RM4,483,442.00
and operating expenses amounted to RM4,247,824.00 (Page 69 of
COB).

The Company suffered losses of RM 1,453,803.00 in 2007

(Page 88 of COB) even after going through a drastic restructuring
and retrenchment exercise.

COW1 reiterated that the retrenchment exercise was

introduced mainly due to the losses the Company was experiencing
over the years and in order to stay afloat it has to reorganize and
restructure its work force drastically and close centers that were not
profitable. The center closures resulted in employees being
retrenched.

The Claimant' Case

In her evidence, she states that she was not given any warning
before the Company issued her the letter of retrenchment dated
4 November 2006 informing her that her position had become
redundant.

13
 She was not paid any retrenchment benefits when she was
asked to leave in spite of having served the Company diligently for
more than 15 years. She had performed her duties well. According
to her evidence, she was hardworking and dedicated to the best of
her ability. The Company had, in recognition of her hard work and
excellent performance, paid her year end bonuses, profits under the
Company's Profit Sharing Scheme and Performance Allowance.

She was also promoted from a Lecturer to an Assistant

Manager and subsequently as a College Operations Manager. By
letter dated 7 October 2004, her position was designated as Centre
Manager. Her last drawn salary was RM3,300.00 per month.

She testified that the Company never adopt fair procedure

before carrying out the retrenchment exercises because it failed to;

(a) Apply the LIFO Principle when selecting her for the
retrenchment;

(b) Hold any discussion or warned her about the Company's

decision to retrench her;

(c) Offer her alternative employment in the Company or in

any of its subsidiaries and branches;

(d) Offer her continued employment with lesser salary; and

(e) Take other cost cutting measures before embarking on

the drastic step of retrenching her.

14
 She had on numerous occasions, requested the Company to
reconsider their decision to retrench her but the Company was
adamant and refused to accommodate her request. After her
retrenchment, her duties were taken over by the Academic Head of
the Centre.

The Company's Centre in Malacca was still running until it was

closed in 2009. The other centres in Malaysia were closed around
2009 too. The Company also failed to get her an alternative
employment within the Company or elsewhere.

Evaluation And Findings

The issue before the Court is whether a case of retrenchment

has been made out and whether in the matter of retrenchment, the
Company had acted bona fide.

In Soonavala's, The Supreme Court on Industrial Law, 2nd

Edition at Page 424, the author DS Chopra states;

“Therefore when a Company gives notice of

retrenchment to its workman and the dispute arising there
from is referred for adjudication to a Tribunal the only
question for its decision are a) whether the retrenchment
was justified by the circumstances of the case b)
whether the grounds for the retrenchment given by the
employer are true, that is whether there had in fact
occurred reduction in the business of the Company due
to circumstances such as scarcity of raw material or the
availability of which the running of the factory depends or
stoppage of works under the orders of the Government or
changes in economy which made it impossible to continue the

15
 business except at a loss or on meagre profits and
c) whether the order of retrenchment was motivated
by bad faith and a desire to victimise or harass the
workman whom for some ulterior reasons the employer
wanted to discharge or dismiss”. [Emphasis Added]

The main ground that the Company undertook the

retrenchment exercise was because the Company was experiencing a
downturn in revenue since 2002 and it was running at a huge loss in
its business by 2005. The Directors' Report and Audited Financial
Statements prepared by Ernst & Young for the years from 2004 until
2007 (Pages 7-113 of COB) clearly indicates that the Company was
experiencing continued losses in its business. The evidence of COW1
that as the revenue was dropping significantly as can be seen in the
Audited Financial Statements forced the Company to implement
drastic measures to save cost. The Audited Financial Statement was
not challenged by the Claimant as no questions were posed to the
COW-1in relation to the contents of the Audited Financial Statement.
The Court thereby accepts the evidence of COW-1 that the Company
was actually running at a loss since 2002.

The Claimant also submitted that she was not warned of her
impending retrenchment. COW1 in his evidence states that an
e-mail (supra) was sent out on 20 January 2006 to every employee
of the Company notifying that there was a restructuring and
reorganizing exercise taking place in the Company due to the fact
that the Company's financial outlook for the year 2006 was bad.

In the said e-mail issued by COW1 reflects the financial

situation faced by the Company and the necessity to implement the
manpower cost saving measures.

16
 On 22 September 2005 all the Center Manager received an
e-mail (Page 5 of COB) from one Andrew Ng requiring them to bring
down the manpower expenses to the range of 35%. All centres were
also required to submit their action plan.

The Claimant acknowledges receiving both the e-mails and she

also acknowledge that she took part in the manpower cost saving
measures. In cross-examination she states as follows;

Q : Refer to COB Page 5 and 6, did you participate in the

Manpower Cost Saving Measures in September 2005.

A : Yes, I did.

P : The Management has instructed the CM to forward a

proposal on long-term and short term Manpower Cost
Saving Plan.

A : Yes.

Q : Refer to COB Page 5, in September 2005 the

Management sent an e-mail to all CM informing them
that all centres were required to bring down
manpower expenses to 35%.

A : Yes.

P : Refer to COB Page 5, paragraph 3; there were request

by Vice President of the Company that all centres
were to submit their action plan?

17
A : Yes.

Q : As CM of Malacca Centre, did you submit the

manpower cost saving as requested?

A : Yes.

Q : With all feedback given to you by the Company about

bringing down the manpower cost and expenses, do
you agree that you are aware that the Company was
not faring well financially?

A : Yes.

Q : As CM you will have knowledge of the financial

standing of your centre and its profitability.

A : Yes.

Q : Refer to Page 3 COB, paragraph 5, would you agree

that in January 2006 you were notified over merger
between MTCO and the K.L. Centre.

A : Yes.

Q : Refer to paragraph 3; the outlook is bad in January

2006 for MTCO.

A : Yes.

18
 Q : Refer to paragraph 7, would you agree (see paragraph
7 “This will result in.....”) Wong inform all the
employees of the Company the staff will have
enlarged duties and responsibilities and excess staff
will be made redundant.

A : Yes.

Q : Refer to the top portion of the e-mail it serves as a

notice that the Company were going through a
consolidation and rationalisation exercise.

A : Yes.

From the above evidence, Claimant was fully aware that the
Company were not fairing well financially and were carrying out
manpower rationalization exercise. Therefore the Claimant has been
amply forewarned about the Company's intention to reduce its work
force and excess staff being made redundant.

Failure to consult the Claimant or to warn them of the

impending retrenchment does not render the retrenchment of the
Claimant mala fide. There is no obligation on the employer to
consult or warn its employees before embarking upon retrenchment.
To expect the Company to do so would be derogating from the
recognised prerogative of an employer to close down, reorganise and
restructure its business in the way its likes be it for the purpose of
the economy or convenience provided its acts is bona fide.

19
 In N. Vijayan K. Nagarayan v Siebel System (M) Sdn.
Bhd. [2006] 1 ILR 385, it was held as follows;

(3) The employer's failure to consult the Claimant or warn

him of the impending retrenchment and its failure to offer
the Claimant an alternative job does not render the
retrenchment of the Claimant mala fide........

COW1 testified that the Company did not attempt to get

alternative employment for the Claimant as there was no alternative
employment because all the centers were closing down,

On the issue that the Claimant was victimised as she was not
paid any retrenchment benefits whereas her colleagues were given
the retrenchment benefits it is pertinent to note the following
evidence in the cross-examination of COW1.

Q.2 : Was there any retrenchment benefits paid to the

Claimant by the Company?

A : No.

Q.3 : Was there any explanation given by the Company

why the Claimant is not entitled for her
retrenchment benefits?

A : No explanation given as we just followed the

contract.

Q.13 : Refer to COBS Pages 58, 59 and 60. In 2006 these

employees were paid compensation benefits. Ms.
Tan Chin Hoong were paid RM63,143.38, Mr. Thor

20
 Meng Tatt was paid RM50,136.81 and Ms. Nirmala
Devi was paid RM17,840.49, what positions were
they holding?

A : Ms. Tan – Sales Manager Kuala Lumpur, Mr. Thor as

Center Manager Kuala Lumpur and Nirmala Devi as a
Lecturer in Kuala Lumpur.

In re-examination COW1 states that by virtue of her contract,

the Company need not pay the Claimant the retrenchment benefits.

The Claimant during the cross-examination testified as follows;

Q : Do you have any documents to show that other

staffs in Malacca center was paid retrenchment
benefits.

A : No.

Q : Refer to COBS Pages 58, 59 and 60 and also Page 3

of COB, the date Mr. Wong (COW1) sent out this e-
mail i.e. 20.1.2006 and the dates in Pages 58, 59
and 60 are the same, that's why they were paid
retrenchment benefits but you were terminated 10
months later and that was the reason why you were
not paid retrenchment benefits?

A : No, I disagree.

21
 It is pertinent to note from these evidence that the Claimant

who brought up this issue failed to inquire further the reasons for the

other employees stated in Pages 58, 59 and 60 were paid the

retrenchment benefits. This failure is fatal as the Court is deprived

from evaluating that evidence and to decide whether there was any

discrimination in the payments of the retrenchment benefits to the

employees of the Company. However as the Claimant herself had

stated that she doesn't have any documents to prove that her

colleagues were paid retrenchment benefits and the Court note that

the other employees who were given the benefits as in Pages 58, 59

and 60 of COBS were retrenched on 20 January 2006, the same day

as the e-mail issued by COW1 the Court is therefore of the view that

it is not sufficient to show that Claimant was victimised or the

Company has acted mala fide in not giving the retrenchment

benefits. Further this issue of discrimination in the payment of the

retrenchment benefits were not pleaded in the Claimant's Statement

of Case.

For reasons adumbrated and having regards to the evidence in

its totality the Court is of the considered view that the Company has

proved on a balance of probability that the Claimants' termination

was perfectly reasonable and justified. It was carried out in good

faith and in accordance to fair labour practice. Based on equity and

good conscience and the substantial merit of the case without regard

22
to technicality and legal form, the Court find that the Claimants'

termination was carried out with just cause and excuse. The claim is

hereby dismissed.

HANDED DOWN AND DATED 10 MARCH 2010.

(GULAM MUHIADDEEN BIN ABDUL AZIZ)

Chairman
Industrial Court, Malaysia
Kuala Lumpur

23