ABDUL SIDIK BIN ABDUL HAMID 1. PERUSAHAAN OTOMOBIL NASIONAL SDN BHD 2. MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA

ABDUL SIDIK BIN ABDUL HAMID 1. PERUSAHAAN OTOMOBIL NASIONAL SDN BHD 2. MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA

The High Court held the Industrial Court did not err: the transfer was authorized by express contractual term and undertaken bona fide as part of restructuring, there was no breach going to the root nor evidence of victimisation, the applicant delayed in electing to terminate thereby waiving any breach, and no adverse inference was proper; judicial review was dismissed.

Citation
WA-25-518-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant: Abdul Sidik bin Abdul Hamid; 1st Respondent: Perusahaan Otomobil Nasional Sdn. Bhd.; 2nd Respondent: Mahkamah Perusahaan Malaysia
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
17 December 2020
Case Number
WA-25-518-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (certiorari and Mandamus) / Decision on Application by High Court
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Constructive Dismissal, Cold Storage, Transfer of Employee, Managerial Prerogative, Delay and Waiver, Adverse Inference Under Evidence Act, Judicial Review of Industrial Court Factual Findings
Source Language
Malay/English
Employment Law Industrial Relations Administrative Law Evidence Law Constructive Dismissal Cold Storage Transfer of Employee Managerial Prerogative +3 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 6 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdul Sidik bin Abdul Hamid

Applicant

Perusahaan Otomobil Nasional Sdn. Bhd.

1st Respondent

Mahkamah Perusahaan Malaysia

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (certiorari and Mandamus) / Decision on Application by High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the transfer/secondment amounted to a breach going to the root of the employment contract constituting constructive dismissal
  2. 2 Whether employer acted mala fide or victimized the employee to force resignation
  3. 3 Whether delay in resigning waived the employee's right to claim constructive dismissal

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held the Industrial Court did not err: the transfer was authorized by express contractual term and undertaken bona fide as part of restructuring, there was no breach going to the root nor evidence of victimisation, the applicant delayed in electing to terminate thereby waiving any breach, and no adverse inference was proper; judicial review was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Judicial review application dismissed
  • Applicant to pay costs of RM4000.00 subject to allocatur