MMC ENGINEERING GROUP BERHAD MD GHAZALI BIN ALI

MMC ENGINEERING GROUP BERHAD MD GHAZALI BIN ALI

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court: the Industrial Court’s Award was unreasonable and perverse because it failed to consider material facts (the Commitment Declaration was a draft, HR and deputy project management were involved, no staff signed, and no concrete damage was proved), failed to consider proportionality and available alternatives, and the employer’s decision was tainted by procedural impropriety (conflict/bias involving the COO). The respondent acted bona fide and dismissal was disproportionate; the High Court’s quashing of the Industrial Court Award and direction to remit for appropriate relief under the IRA was correct; appeal dismissed.

Citation
J-01(A)-68-01/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: MMC Engineering Group Berhad; Respondent: Md Ghazali Bin Ali
Court
A
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
29 September 2025
Case Number
J-01(A)-68-01/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Construction Appeal / Appeal to Court of Appeal (judgment)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Constructive Dismissal, Procedural Impropriety, Proportionality, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Reinstatement/compensation
Source Language
Malay/English
Employment Law Industrial Relations Administrative Law Judicial Review Unfair Dismissal Constructive Dismissal Procedural Impropriety Proportionality +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 6 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MMC Engineering Group Berhad

Appellant

Md Ghazali Bin Ali

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Construction Appeal / Appeal to Court of Appeal (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent’s issuance of the Commitment Declaration constituted grave misconduct justifying summary termination
  2. 2 Whether the Industrial Court’s Award was irrational or perverse (Wednesbury) or tainted by procedural impropriety/bias
  3. 3 Whether the punishment of termination was proportionate to the alleged misconduct

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court: the Industrial Court’s Award was unreasonable and perverse because it failed to consider material facts (the Commitment Declaration was a draft, HR and deputy project management were involved, no staff signed, and no concrete damage was proved), failed to consider proportionality and available alternatives, and the employer’s decision was tainted by procedural impropriety (conflict/bias involving the COO). The respondent acted bona fide and dismissal was disproportionate; the High Court’s quashing of the Industrial Court Award and direction to remit for appropriate relief under the IRA was correct; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs of RM20,000.00 (subject to allocator)