PRABAHARAN A/L MALAYALAM 1. ) HIEWA AUTO GALLERY (LARKIN) SDN BHD 2. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA

PRABAHARAN A/L MALAYALAM 1. ) HIEWA AUTO GALLERY (LARKIN) SDN BHD 2. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA

The Industrial Court had jurisdiction to decide whether the claimant was an employee at the time of alleged dismissal; contemporaneous evidence established the claimant became a full‑time employee of another employer on 16.5.2018 and thus had abandoned his employment before the employer's termination, rendering the Industrial Court's award valid and the High Court's dismissal of judicial review correct.

Citation
J-01(A)-83-02/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant / Perayu: PRABAHARAN A/L MALAYALAM; 1st Respondent: HEIWA AUTO GALERRY (LARKIN) SDN BHD; 2nd Respondent (industrial Court): MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN JOHOR BAHRU
Court
A
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
23 August 2022
Case Number
J-01(A)-83-02/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (judicial Review of Industrial Court Award) / Court of Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; High Court order affirmed.
Legal Topics
Abandonment of Employment, Jurisdiction of Industrial Court, Workman Definition, New Reasons in Dismissal, Grounds for Judicial Review
Source Language
Malay/English
Employment Law Industrial Relations Administrative Law Civil Procedure Judicial Review Abandonment of Employment Jurisdiction of Industrial Court Workman Definition +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PRABAHARAN A/L MALAYALAM

Appellant / Perayu

HEIWA AUTO GALERRY (LARKIN) SDN BHD

1st Respondent

MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN JOHOR BAHRU

2nd Respondent (industrial Court)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (judicial Review of Industrial Court Award) / Court of Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to determine if the claimant was a workman/employee at the time of the alleged dismissal
  2. 2 Whether the claimant abandoned his employment prior to the employer's dismissal
  3. 3 Whether the employer impermissibly introduced new reasons for dismissal after the fact

Ratio Decidendi

The Industrial Court had jurisdiction to decide whether the claimant was an employee at the time of alleged dismissal; contemporaneous evidence established the claimant became a full‑time employee of another employer on 16.5.2018 and thus had abandoned his employment before the employer's termination, rendering the Industrial Court's award valid and the High Court's dismissal of judicial review correct.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; High Court order affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal No. J-01(A)-83-02/2021 dismissed
  • Appeal No. J-02(IM)-1512-10/2020 dismissed