MUHAMMAD NAZIFI KUSNUN v. PENGURUSAN AIR SELANGOR SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
PARAMALINGAM J DORAISAMY
AWARD NO. 1008 OF 2025 [CASE NO: 22-4-484-22]
24 JUNE 2025
Abstract – (i) An unsigned and unsworn witness statement is inadmissible as evidence-in-chief, especially if the deponent had passed away before the trial and cannot be cross-examined; (ii) Hearsay evidence, such as testimony from a witness lacking personal knowledge of events and relying solely on information from a deceased party, is inadmissible in court; (iii) Statements made between a husband and wife about work matters do not qualify as statements made in the ordinary course of business under s. 32(1)(b) of the Evidence Act 1950.
YEE MENG KHEONG v. HOSPITAL FATIMAH
INDUSTRIAL COURT, PERAK
ZULHELMY HASAN
AWARD NO. 1070 OF 2025 [CASE NO: 10-4-671-22]
7 JULY 2025
Abstract – A claimant is not a ‘workman’ under the Industrial Relations Act 1967, and therefore not entitled to claim for unjust dismissal, if the intention of the parties, as evidenced by a written agreement and the actual working relationship, demonstrates a contract for services rather than a contract of service. Factors indicating a contract for services include: (i) the absence of a formal letter of employment and the existence of a fixed-term service agreement (‘CSA’); (ii) express clauses in the CSA stating that the claimant is not an employee; (iii) lack of significant control by the respondent over the claimant’s work; and (iv) payment based on fees rather than a fixed salary, with the claimant not receiving normal employee benefits like EPF and SOCSO.
