BULLETIN 09/2016

LATEST CASES (ILR Issue 09 of 2016)

SUBJECT INDEX

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Judicial review - Certiorari - Application to quash award of Industrial Court allowing respondents' claim for backwages and compensation - Whether respondents' dismissal from employment harsh and unjust - Respondents punched cards of fellow workers who were not at work - Whether punch card misconduct a serious breach justifying summary dismissal - Whether employers' course of action in dismissing respondents justified - Whether there was violation of principles of fairness, good conscience and equity - Whether proper case warranting judicial review intervention - Whether award ought to be set aside
MISC Haulage Services Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Mohd Ali Awang & Ors
(Lim Chong Fong JC) [2016] 3 ILR 453 cljlaw labourlaw

CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT

Terms and conditions - Retirement age - Claimant's employment letter not containing a clause on the age of retirement - Whether a retirement age policy had been practiced by the respondent company - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced - Effect of
Sarguna Silan S Manokarian v. Freightwatch Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Sulaiman Ismail) [2016] 3 ILR 598 cljlaw labourlaw

Terms and conditions - Retirement age - Whether the claimant had been aware of the retirement age policy of the respondent company - Factors to consider - Position held by the claimant in the respondent company - Effect of
Sarguna Silan S Manokarian v. Freightwatch Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Sulaiman Ismail) [2016] 3 ILR 598 cljlaw labourlaw

Terms and conditions - Retirement age - Whether the respondent company had promised the claimant that he could work for as long as he was fit to perform his task - Evidence adduced - Effect of
Sarguna Silan S Manokarian v. Freightwatch Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Sulaiman Ismail) [2016] 3 ILR 598 cljlaw labourlaw

DISMISSAL

Attendance - Lateness - Whether the claimant had habitually come to work late - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Whether proven by the company - Perusal of his attendance record - Effect of
Joseph Daniel Devanesan v. Atlas Lines Services (M) Sdn Bhd
(Hapipah Monel) [2016] 3 ILR 536 cljlaw labourlaw

Breach of company rules and policies - Conflict of interest with the company's business - Claimant registering and operating KNR Global which had been running a similar business to the company - Whether his actions had been in conflict of interest to that of the company's - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether he had been aware of the Guidelines and its contents - Claimant's length of service in the company - Whether his actions had constituted serious misconduct - Whether his actions had warranted his dismissal - Factors to consider - Whether his dismissal had been without just cause and excuse
Noorazmi Omar v. IBM Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Jamhirah Ali) [2016] 3 ILR 640 cljlaw labourlaw

Breach of company rules and policies - Fraud - Whether the claimant had submitted fraudulent mileage claims - Evidence adduced - Effect of - His explanations - Whether could be accepted - Factors to consider - Whether it had warranted his dismissal - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Noorazmi Omar v. IBM Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Jamhirah Ali) [2016] 3 ILR 640 cljlaw labourlaw

Breach of company rules and policies - Whether the claimant had run a business in competition with the company - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether it had destroyed the trust and confidence placed by the company in him - Whether the company had acted reasonably in dismissing him - Whether his dismissal had been with just cause and excuse
Joseph Daniel Devanesan v. Atlas Lines Services (M) Sdn Bhd
(Hapipah Monel) [2016] 3 ILR 536 cljlaw labourlaw

Insubordination - Claimant admitting to not complying with the instructions of his superior - Effect of - Whether it had amounted to a misconduct - Factors to consider - Whether it had warranted his dismissal
Noorazmi Omar v. IBM Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Jamhirah Ali) [2016] 3 ILR 640 cljlaw labourlaw

Misconduct - Picketing - Illegal picketing - Claimants' actions - Whether it had been in breach of s. 40(1)(a) to (c) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 - What they should have done - Whether their actions had been in contravention of the spirit and intention of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Perusal of the Act - Effect of - Whether they had been selectively prosecuted by the company - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 40(1)(a) to (c)
Mohammad Faris Basri & Ors v. Ansell NP Sdn Bhd
(Hapipah Monel) [2016] 3 ILR 546 cljlaw labourlaw

Misconduct - Picketing - When is it lawful to picket - Factors to consider - Evaluation of legislation - Effect of - Whether a trade dispute had existed in this case - What a trade dispute meant - Whether a smoking zone had been a term and condition of the claimants' terms of employment - Perusal of the CA - Effect of - Whether the pickets had been illegal - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 40
Mohammad Faris Basri & Ors v. Ansell Np Sdn Bhd
(Hapipah Monel) [2016] 3 ILR 546 cljlaw labourlaw

Misconduct - Picketing - Whether the claimants had participated in illegal pickets - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Claimants admitting to it at various stages of the proceedings - Whether it had constituted misconduct serious enough to justify their dismissals - Whether their dismissals had been carried out with just cause and excuse
Mohammad Faris Basri & Ors v. Ansell NP Sdn Bhd
(Hapipah Monel) [2016] 3 ILR 546 cljlaw labourlaw

Misconduct - Picketing - Whether the pickets had been unlawful - Factors to consider - Whether the claimants had been aware that the dispute over the CA had been referred to the IC at the material time - Evidence adduced - Effect of
Mohammad Faris Basri & Ors v. Ansell NP Sdn Bhd
(Hapipah Monel) [2016] 3 ILR 546 cljlaw labourlaw

Misconduct - Whether he had failed to supervise his contractors and employees - Claimant only having supervisory powers over the contractors - This fact conceded to by the company - Whether it had been fair to blame him for the drop in the volume of logs produce - Factors to consider - Effect of
Ngu Kie Dung v. Subur Tiasa Holdings Berhad
(Duncan Sikodol) [2016] 3 ILR 465 cljlaw labourlaw

Misconduct - Whether he had failed to supervise the camps personally - Whether he had needed to do so - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether allegation made out against him
Ngu Kie Dung v. Subur Tiasa Holdings Berhad
(Duncan Sikodol) [2016] 3 ILR 465 cljlaw labourlaw

Misconduct - Whether the claimant had been at the camps to resolve operational issues - Company relying on the records of the food board - Whether it had been compulsory for all the company's staff to take their meals at the camp's canteen - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether this allegation had been made out against him
Ngu Kie Dung v. Subur Tiasa Holdings Berhad
(Duncan Sikodol) [2016] 3 ILR 465 cljlaw labourlaw

Misconduct - Whether the claimant had been in dereliction of his duties and responsibilities to supervise the camps which had caused the company to suffer great loss - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether the allegations had been proven by the company against him - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse
Ngu Kie Dung v. Subur Tiasa Holdings Berhad
(Duncan Sikodol) [2016] 3 ILR 465 cljlaw labourlaw

Misconduct - Whether the claimant had failed to ensure that the logs had been transported out from the Stonepark and Larissa camps - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether allegation made out by the company against him
Ngu Kie Dung v. Subur Tiasa Holdings Berhad
(Duncan Sikodol) [2016] 3 ILR 465 cljlaw labourlaw

Misconduct - Whether the claimant had failed to oversee the Stonepark and Koyan camp for more than a day in February and March 2009 - Whether it had been possible for him to have been physically present at each of the camps at least once a month - Factors to consider - Perusal of the contents of his letter of employment - Effect of - Whether the allegation had been made out against him
Ngu Kie Dung v. Subur Tiasa Holdings Berhad
(Duncan Sikodol) [2016] 3 ILR 465 cljlaw labourlaw

Misconduct - Whether the claimant had released the bills of lading without the company's consent - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether the misconduct had been proven by the company - Whether it had amounted to serious misconduct - Whether the company had acted reasonably in dismissing him - Whether the claimant's dismissal had been justified - Whether dismissal with just cause and excuse
Joseph Daniel Devanesan v. Atlas Lines Services (M) Sdn Bhd
(Hapipah Monel) [2016] 3 ILR 536 cljlaw labourlaw

Misconduct - Whether the Tubau New Log pond had been under the claimant's supervision - Company denying the same - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Conflicting evidence given by the company witnesses - What it should have done
Ngu Kie Dung v. Subur Tiasa Holdings Berhad
(Duncan Sikodol) [2016] 3 ILR 465 cljlaw labourlaw

DOMESTIC INQUIRY

Absence of - Whether it had invalidated the disciplinary process that had resulted in the claimant's dismissal - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether the Industrial Court had the jurisdiction to hear the matter
Noorazmi Omar v. IBM Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Jamhirah Ali) [2016] 3 ILR 640 cljlaw labourlaw

EVIDENCE

Adverse inference - COW1 and COW2 who had not been the claimant's superiors testifying against him - Whether the company by its actions had had something to hide - Whether the MD should have been called to testify - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether an adverse inference ought to be drawn against the company
Ngu Kie Dung v. Subur Tiasa Holdings Berhad
(Duncan Sikodol) [2016] 3 ILR 465 cljlaw labourlaw

INDUSTRIAL COURT

Jurisdiction - Challenge to - Claimant abandoning his claim for reinstatement during the course of the proceedings - Effect of - Whether his actions had ousted the Industrial Court's jurisdiction to hear the case - Factors to consider - Whether the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter
Hamizul Karnain Hasani v. Toyochem Specialty Chemical Sdn Bhd
(Hapipah Monel) [2016] 3 ILR 529 cljlaw labourlaw

Jurisdiction - Company failing to hold a Domestic Inquiry - Effect of - Whether Industrial Court had the jurisdiction to hear the matter - Factors to consider
Noorazmi Omar v. IBM Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Jamhirah Ali) [2016] 3 ILR 640 cljlaw labourlaw

INTERPRETATION

Award - Duration of the CA - One of the agreed articles between the parties - Court subsequently handing down an award changing the effective date of the CA - Whether that had created an ambiguity in the Award - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether the Award had been handed down after a considered and conscious effort by the Court - Whether the union's application ought to be allowed - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 30(4) & 33(1)
Kesatuan Pekerja-pekerja Perkilangan Perusahaan Makanan v. F & N Dairies Manufacturing Sdn Bhd
(Anna Ng Fui Choo) [2016] 3 ILR 582 cljlaw labourlaw

LABOUR LAW

Dismissal - Misconduct - Respondents punched cards of fellow workers who were not at work - Whether punch card misconduct a serious breach justifying summary dismissal - Whether respondents' dismissal from employment harsh and unjust - Whether employers' course of action in dismissing respondents justified - Whether punishment of dismissal commensurate and was not disproportionate with breach of conduct
MISC Haulage Services Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Mohd Ali Awang & Ors
(Lim Chong Fong JC) [2016] 3 ILR 453 cljlaw labourlaw

TRADE DISPUTE

Collective Agreement - When a trade dispute exists - Factors to consider - Whether one had existed in the present case - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of
Mohammad Faris Basri & Ors v. Ansell NP Sdn Bhd
(Hapipah Monel) [2016] 3 ILR 546 cljlaw labourlaw

INDEKS PERKARA

KETERANGAN

Keterangan dokumentari - Nota prosiding SD - Sama ada ianya tepat, menggambarkan sepenuhnya prosiding SD yang dijalankan serta telah mematuhi prinsip keadilan asasi - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya
Haslinda Haja Mohideen lwn. Persatuan Daybreak Untuk Kebajikan Orang-orang Cacat Kinta Perak
(Rasidah Chik) [2016] 3 ILR 612 cljlaw labourlaw

Keterangan dokumentari - Nota Siasatan Dalaman - Sama ada sah dan tepat - Faktor-Faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya
Hasri Hashim & Satu Lagi Kes lwn. Hicom Automotive Manufacturers (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Rosli Mohd Sham) [2016] 3 ILR 604 cljlaw labourlaw

Keterangan dokumentari - Surat penggantungan kerja YM1 dan YM2 - Penelitian kandungannya - Sama ada dakwaan salah laku yang dinyatakan di dalamnya adalah jelas - Sama ada YM1 dan YM2 telah diberi peluang yang secukupnya untuk membela diri atas dakwaan tersebut - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Sama ada terdapat perlanggaran hak-hak asasi YM1 dan YM2 - Kesannya - Sama ada penamatan perkhidmatan mereka telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab
Liew Hon Leong & Satu Lagi lwn. Uniplaster Marketing Sdn Berhad
(Rasidah Chik) [2016] 3 ILR 487 cljlaw labourlaw

KONTRAK PERKHIDMATAN

Jenis - Kontrak perkhidmatan tempoh tetap - Sama ada jawatan yang disandang oleh YM merupakan jenis pekerjaan yang kekal atau bersifat sementara - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya
Aminudin Shuib lwn. Kedah Bioresources Corporation Sdn Bhd
(Sulaiman Ismail) [2016] 3 ILR 591 cljlaw labourlaw

Notis penamatan - Syarikat tidak membangkitkan isu berkenan prestasi kerja YM di dalam surat penamatan perkhidmatannya tetapi membangkitkannya di mahkamah - Sama ada merupakan satu amalan buruh yang baik - Sama ada syarikat melalui tindakannya telah menunjukkan niatnya yang mala fide - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya
Saratha Ramiah v. Atlantic Forwarding (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Siti Salwa Musa) [2016] 3 ILR 513 cljlaw labourlaw

Terma dan syarat - Notis penamatan - Tiada alasan diberikan untuk penamatan perkhidmatan YM - Kesannya - Sama ada ia merupakan suatu termination simpliciter - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Sama ada penamatan perkhidmatan YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab
Aminudin Shuib lwn. Kedah Bioresources Corporation Sdn Bhd
(Sulaiman Ismail) [2016] 3 ILR 591 cljlaw labourlaw

MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN

Bidang kuasa - Sama ada Mahkamah Perusahaan mempunyai bidang kuasa untuk mendengar kes ini - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Sama ada keterangan dengan jelas menunjukkan bahawa YM tidak ingin dikembalikan kepada pekerjaan mereka - Kesannya
Hasri Hashim & Satu Lagi Kes lwn. Hicom Automotive Manufacturers (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Rosli Mohd Sham) [2016] 3 ILR 604 cljlaw labourlaw

Pampasan - Gaji kebelakang - Sama ada harus diawardkan kepada YM2 - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya
Liew Hon Leong & Satu Lagi lwn. Uniplaster Marketing Sdn Berhad
(Rasidah Chik) [2016] 3 ILR 487 cljlaw labourlaw

PEMBUANGAN KERJA

Ketidakpatuhan terhadap peraturan dan polisi syarikat - Ketidakjujuran - Cuti sakit - Sama ada YM2 telah mengambil cuti sakit tanpa mengemukakan sijil cuti sakit atau cuti tanpa gaji dan telah membuat tuntutan gaji bulanan yang penuh tanpa sebarang potongan - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Sama ada ianya dinyatakan di dalam surat penggantungan kerja atau surat penamatan kerja beliau - Kesannya - Sama ada ianya merupakan salah laku yang membawa kepada penamatan kerja YM2 - Tindakan syarikat responden terhadap YM2 dalam perkara ini - Apa ia menunjukkan - Sama ada syarikat responden harus dibenarkan membangkitkan isu itu pada peringkat ini
Liew Hon Leong & Satu Lagi lwn. Uniplaster Marketing Sdn Berhad
(Rasidah Chik) [2016] 3 ILR 487 cljlaw labourlaw

Ketidakpatuhan terhadap peraturan dan polisi syarikat - Ketidakjujuran - Sama ada penyediaan Payment Voucher oleh YM2 bagi YM1 untuk kos penyelengaraan kereta yang didakwa tidak sepadan dengan jumlah perbelanjaan yang sebenar merupakan satu salah laku - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Kenderaan tersebut merupakan kenderaan syarikat - Sama ada ianya mempunyai kaitan dengan YM1 atau YM2 - Sama ada penamatan perkhidmatan mereka atas alasan ini telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab
Liew Hon Leong & Satu Lagi lwn. Uniplaster Marketing Sdn Berhad
(Rasidah Chik) [2016] 3 ILR 487 cljlaw labourlaw

Ketidakpatuhan terhadap peraturan dan polisi syarikat - Ketidakjujuran - Sama ada wang telah dikeluarkan dan sebahagiannya telah dimasukkan ke dalam akaun YM2 - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Penjelasan YM2 - Sama ada dapat diterima - Sama ada salah laku ini berjaya dibuktikan oleh syarikat responden atas tahap imbangan kebarangkalian - Sama ada penamatan kerja YM2 telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab
Liew Hon Leong & Satu Lagi lwn. Uniplaster Marketing Sdn Berhad
(Rasidah Chik) [2016] 3 ILR 487 cljlaw labourlaw

Ketidakpatuhan terhadap peraturan dan polisi syarikat - Ketidakjujuran - Sama ada YM telah menyeleweng wang syarikat responden - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Penjelasan beliau - Sama ada dapat diterima - Kesannya - Sama ada pertuduhan-pertuduhan ini berjaya dibuktikan oleh syarikat responden terhadapnya - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Sama ada salah laku-salah laku ini merupakan salah laku-salah laku yang serius yang mewajarkan beliau ditamatkan perkhidmatannya - Sama ada penamatan perkhidmatan YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab
Haslinda Haja Mohideen lwn. Persatuan Daybreak Untuk Kebajikan Orang-orang Cacat Kinta Perak
(Rasidah Chik) [2016] 3 ILR 612 cljlaw labourlaw

Ketidakpatuhan terhadap peraturan dan polisi syarikat - Ketidakjujuran - YM1 dituduh membuat tuntutan yang tidak dibenarkan daripada Unilever Industries - Sama ada dibuktikan oleh syarikat responden atas tahap imbangan kebarangkalian - Sama ada terdapat hubungan kerja antara YM1, YM2 dan Uniplaster Industries - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada tindakan syarikat responden memberhentikan perkhidmatan YM1 adalah wajar - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM1 dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Liew Hon Leong & Satu Lagi lwn. Uniplaster Marketing Sdn Berhad
(Rasidah Chik) [2016] 3 ILR 487 cljlaw labourlaw

Ketidakpatuhan terhadap peraturan dan polisi syarikat - Ketidakjujuran - YM2 gagal untuk mendapatkan tandatangan di bahagian "Approved By" dan "Checked By" Payment Voucher - Sama ada ianya merupakan satu salah laku - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Sama ada salah laku ini berjaya dibuktikan oleh syarikat responden atas tahap imbangan kebarangkalian - Sama ada penamatan kerja YM2 telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab
Liew Hon Leong & Satu Lagi lwn. Uniplaster Marketing Sdn Berhad
(Rasidah Chik) [2016] 3 ILR 487 cljlaw labourlaw

Ketidakpatuhan terhadap polisi syarikat - Kesalahan moral - Sama ada ianya menjadi sebahagian daripada dasar atau polisi syarikat yang pekerja perlu patuhi - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Sama ada ia menjadi sebahagian daripada syarat kontrak pekerjaan YM - Kesannya - Sama ada salah laku tersebut tergolong kepada salah laku yang berat yang mewajarkan pembuangan kerja YM
Hasri Hashim & Satu Lagi Kes lwn. Hicom Automotive Manufacturers (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Rosli Mohd Sham) [2016] 3 ILR 604 cljlaw labourlaw

Penghematan - Sama ada YM merupakan lebihan tenaga kerja di syarikat - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada penamatan perkhidmatan YM mempunyai impak yang material atas kedudukan kewangan pihak syarikat - Kesannya - Sama ada jawatan YM telah dilupuskan selepas penyusunan semula syarikat - Sama ada syarikat berjaya membuktikan bahawa penghematan wujud atas imbangan kebarangkalian - Sama ada penamatan perkhidmatan YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab
Saratha Ramiah v. Atlantic Forwarding (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Siti Salwa Musa) [2016] 3 ILR 513 cljlaw labourlaw

Penghematan - YM telah diberhentikan atas alasan lebihan tenaga pekerja - Syarikat gagal untuk mematuhi prinsip LIFO - Alasan-alasan syarikat - Sama ada dapat diterima - Sama ada tindakan syarikat merupakan satu amalan buruh yang baik - Apa yang syarikat sepatutnya lakukan - Sama ada penamatan perkhidmatan YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab
Saratha Ramiah v. Atlantic Forwarding (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Siti Salwa Musa) [2016] 3 ILR 513 cljlaw labourlaw

Prestasi kerja - Syarikat tidak membangkitkan isu prestasi kerja YM di dalam surat pemberhentiannya - Isu prestasi kerja beliau dibangkitkan di mahkamah - Sama ada merupakan satu amalan pekerjaan yang tidak adil dan menunjukkan niat jahat pihak syarikat - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Sama ada penamatan perkhidmatan YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab
Saratha Ramiah v. Atlantic Forwarding (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Siti Salwa Musa) [2016] 3 ILR 513 cljlaw labourlaw

Salah laku - YM didakwa melakukan khalwat - Sama ada kesalahan moral tergolong kepada salah laku pekerjaan - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Sama ada dibuktikan oleh pihak syarikat - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada salah laku tersebut mewajarkan pembuangan kerja YM - Sama ada penamatan perkhidmatan YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Hasri Hashim & Satu Lagi Kes lwn. Hicom Automotive Manufacturers (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Rosli Mohd Sham) [2016] 3 ILR 604 cljlaw labourlaw

SIASATAN DALAMAN

Kesilapan prosedur - Sama ada SD telah dijalankan secara teratur dan sah - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya
Haslinda Haja Mohideen lwn. Persatuan Daybreak Untuk Kebajikan Orang-orang Cacat Kinta Perak
(Rasidah Chik) [2016] 3 ILR 612 cljlaw labourlaw

Ketiadaan - Sama ada fatal kepada kes syarikat responden - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Sama ada keputusan SD mengikat Mahkamah Perusahaan - Peranan Mahkamah Perusahaan
Liew Hon Leong & Satu Lagi lwn. Uniplaster Marketing Sdn Berhad
(Rasidah Chik) [2016] 3 ILR 487 cljlaw labourlaw
Copyright Mylawbox Sdn Bhd