SIVABALAN POOBALASINGAM v. KUWAIT FINANCE HOUSE (MALAYSIA) BERHAD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
JAMHIRAH ALI
AWARD NO. 132 OF 2016 [CASE NO: 7/4-459/13]
12 FEBRUARY 2016
DISMISSAL: Retrenchment - Redundancy - Claimant retrenched - Whether he had been offered alternative employment within the company - Evidence adduced - Whether redundancy had clearly been an excuse to get rid of him
DISMISSAL: Retrenchment - Redundancy - Claimant retrenched - Whether the claimant had possessed the required experience and skill set to spearhead the new business plan with regard to sukuk funds - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether the claimant's removal had been an excuse to replace him with COW1's candidate of choice - Whether that had shown mala fide intent on the part of the company
DISMISSAL: Retrenchment - Redundancy - Claimant retrenched - Whether the claimant's role in the company had ceased to exist - Evidence adduced - Claimant's functions and duties transferred to another - Effect of - Whether he had been surplus to the company's needs - Factors to consider - Company's actions towards him - Whether it had been fair
DISMISSAL: Retrenchment - Redundancy - Claimant retrenched - Whether the retrenchment had been carried out bona fide - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced by the company - Effect of - Whether the claimant's replacement had been better suited for the job - Claimant's skill set - Whether the claimant had been given the opportunity to handle the sukuk funds - What the company should have done
EVIDENCE: Burden of proof - Whether discharged by the company - Factors to consider
INDUSTRIAL COURT: Remedies - Compensation - Claimant seeking EPF payments - Whether ought to be allowed - Factors to consider - Determination of quantum
INDUSTRIAL COURT: Remedies - Compensation in lieu of reinstatement - Whether should include punitive compensation - Factors to consider - What would be a reasonable amount to award
NORBERT FINGER v. SANTINA RESORT (TRG) SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
ANNA NG FUI CHOO
AWARD NO. 157 OF 2016 [CASE NO: 3(15)/4-1211/13]
19 FEBRUARY 2016
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT: Terms and conditions - Allowances - Claimant making claims for his car instalment payments, his housing loan, his property rental, air tickets and Director's fees - Whether he had been entitled to them - Factors to consider - Perusal of his contract of employment - Effect of
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT: Terms and conditions - Notice of termination - Whether the claimant had been terminated by the company - Claimant alleging that he had still been an employee of the company - Company issuing him a termination notice - Perusal of
DISMISSAL: Misconduct - Claimant issuing a Letter of Demand and a Winding-Up notice for his outstanding salaries to the company - Whether it had constituted misconduct - Whether proven by the company - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether it had constituted a grave and serious misconduct - Whether he had been in breach of his fiduciary duties to the company - Whether his misconduct had been serious enough to justify his dismissal - Perusal of the claimant's contract of employment - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse
EVIDENCE: Adverse inference - Non-production of a material witness - Company failing to call Ahmad Sobri - Whether the burden had been on the company to call him as a witness - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether an adverse inference ought to be drawn against the company - Evidence Act 1950, ss. 101 & 114(g)
EVIDENCE: Witness - Credibility - Whether the claimant and CLW1 had been credible witnesses - Factors to consider
INDUSTRIAL COURT: Jurisdiction - Whether the Industrial Court had the jurisdiction to hear this matter - Factors to consider - Whether the claimant had been terminated by the company - Effect of
INDUSTRIAL COURT: Procedure - Action - Whether the claimant had filed his claims for outstanding salaries in the proper forum - Factors to consider - Effect of - What he should have done
|