Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reinstatement vs compensation

Legal area

Court

10 Dec 2025

Red Sea Housing Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. Chew Soon Beng

Citation

JA-16A-1-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-16A-1-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed the Industrial Court: dismissal was not shown to be a genuine redundancy because evidence established the MD post was not abolished at the time of dismissal, the recorded conversation showed MMC's intent to replace the Respondent, and the employer failed to adduce concrete documentary proof of redundancy; no error of law, perversity or failure to appreciate evidence under s33C was demonstrated.
12 Aug 2024

XXXX SOMYANARAIN NALLA PILLAI A/L MUNUSAMY

Citation

WA-16A-17-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-16A-17-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court found no appealable error: the Industrial Court correctly confined itself to reasons in the termination letter, the University failed to prove allegations (lateness unpunished, WhatsApp allegations hearsay/unparticularised, police report not prohibited by contract), the respondent was dismissed without just cause or excuse, reinstatement was impracticable, and the compensation award of RM156,000 with costs was justified and thus affirmed.
2 Apr 2024

ISTIMA SEMPURNA SDN BHD MATHAN A/L HARI KRISHNAN

Citation

WA-16A-27-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-16A-27-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application to adduce fresh evidence dismissed because the Industrial Court had found notices were served and had proceeded ex parte, the appellant failed to file a Statement in Reply and sought to introduce unpleaded issues on rehearing which would prejudice the respondent and circumvent pleading rules; therefore the court would not disturb the finding of service and would not admit the fresh evidence.
14 Jun 2023

MELIPOLY ENTERPRISE SDN BHD 1. ) Ong Hong Yeok 2. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

W-01(A)-736-12/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-01(A)-736-12/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the employer was limited to the reasons in the termination letter (economic recession and poor sales); although financial losses were evidenced, the employer failed to prove bona fide redundancy because the employee's functions continued (reduced but not eliminated); therefore the dismissal was without just cause or excuse. The Industrial Court retained jurisdiction following the Ministerial reference under s.20 IRA even though the respondent did not seek reinstatement. Appeal dismissed and costs awarded.
29 Nov 2022

OSRAM OPTO SEMICONDUCTORS (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD. 1. ) OOI MEI CHEIN @ WEI MEI CHEIN 2. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

P-01(A)-525-09/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

P-01(A)-525-09/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held the Industrial Court's finding of genuine redundancy was irrational and unsupported because the appellant's own documents showed the employee's duties remained and were merely redistributed; accordingly the High Court correctly quashed the Industrial Court Award. However, reinstatement after a six‑year lapse and breakdown of mutual trust would not be conducive to industrial harmony, so reinstatement was varied to compensation in lieu (RM804,650), High Court award of back wages (RM772,464) and punitive damages (RM50,000) were affirmed, and costs awarded (RM15,000).
25 Nov 2021

BINA DARULAMAN BERHAD 1. ) NOOR IKHSAN ABDUL AZIZ 2. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

PA-25-35-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-25-35-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held there was no jurisdictional or procedural error by the Industrial Court; its factual findings that the employee had not been shown to be negligent and had acted under instruction were supported by evidence, and the Industrial Court lawfully awarded monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement under its statutory power, therefore the judicial review application was dismissed.
5 Aug 2021

XTEND SERVICES SDN. BHD. 1. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA 2. ) JOHNNY LEE YUEN KUN

Citation

WA-25-201-07-2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-201-07-2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the Industrial Court correctly found the 2 January 2018 letter to be a mandatory termination (not a negotiable offer), that the employer failed to prove cogent reasons (redundancy) for the mutual separation, and that the Industrial Court lawfully awarded backwages (22 months × last drawn salary) and compensation; there was no illegality, irrationality or perversity warranting certiorari, so the judicial review application was dismissed.
15 Mar 2021

TAI CHIN YEE 1. ) TONG SAN CHAN DISTRIBUTORS SDN BHD 2. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

AA-25-21-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-25-21-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Employer failed to discharge legal burden: late admission that signatures were not forged destroyed the factual foundation of the charges; applicant had given positive evidence she acted on superior's instructions and employer did not call or attempt to call the superior to rebut, permitting adverse inference under Evidence Act and shifting evidential burden; Industrial Court's acceptance of employer's case was therefore illegal and irrational and its award was quashed; equitable factors justified awarding compensation in lieu without deducting post-dismissal earnings.
30 Dec 2020

KIMMU TRADING SDN BHD (COMPANY NO.: 923027-P) 1. MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA 2. NORFADILAH BINTI MOHD SAZALI (NO. K/P: XXXXXX-XX-XXXX)

Citation

JB-25-2-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-25-2-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court found no error in the Industrial Court's decision: the employee was negligent and misconduct was established but reinstatement was not appropriate due to breakdown of trust; however the employer failed to show consideration of statutory alternatives under s.14(1) before dismissing, so the Industrial Court's award of compensation in lieu of notice (RM5,220) and back wages (RM36,540) was proportionate and is upheld; the judicial review application is dismissed with costs.
22 Jan 2020

MARITIME INTELLIGENCE SDN BHD TAN AH GEK

Citation

J-02(A)-111-01/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

J-02(A)-111-01/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that an employer cannot be permitted to justify dismissal by relying on a ground that was not pleaded or raised in the show cause notice, domestic inquiry or notice of dismissal unless the ground was legitimately discovered after dismissal and could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence; here the unaccredited degree allegation was not pleaded as misrepresentation, could have been investigated earlier, and was an afterthought, therefore the Industrial Court correctly rejected it and the dismissal remained without just cause.