Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Transfer of employment

Legal area

Court

16 Jul 2025

1. ) Abdul Halim Bin Mubarak 2. ) Abeha B. Mohd Yasin 3. ) Aini Bt Hamid 4. ) Aishah Mariam Bt K. Thamby Sahib 5. ) Azirridzam Bin Hamid 6. ) Ridwan Rodrigues Bin Abdullah 7. ) Che Haminah Bt Che Harun 8. ) Chin Yan Mooi 9. ) Chris Ng Ah Kw

Citation

WA-22NCvC-267-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-267-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found D1 orchestrated the migration of employees to D3 without informing or obtaining consent, used release letters to evade contractual/statutory retrenchment liabilities, and therefore D1 is liable to the plaintiffs for their contractual entitlements; D2 is not liable as separate legal entity; the claim for contractual benefits was not barred by s20(4) IRA; identification documents were admissible under s73A and given appropriate weight.
16 Jul 2025

1. ) Abdul Halim Bin Mubarak 2. ) Abeha B. Mohd Yasin 3. ) Aini Bt Hamid 4. ) Aishah Mariam Bt K. Thamby Sahib 5. ) Azirridzam Bin Hamid 6. ) Ridwan Rodrigues Bin Abdullah 7. ) Che Haminah Bt Che Harun 8. ) Chin Yan Mooi 9. ) Chris Ng Ah Kw

Citation

WA-22NCvC-267-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-267-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found D1 deliberately concealed the migration of employees to D3 and issued release letters as a device to avoid contractual/statutory liabilities; plaintiffs did not consent or know of the migration and suffered loss of contractual retirement/retrenchment benefits as a direct consequence, therefore D1 is liable. D2 is not liable because plaintiffs failed to prove it was their employer and the separate legal entity doctrine applies. The civil court may award contractual retirement benefits on these facts.
2 Dec 2024

Noramidah Binti Othman @ Anuar 1. ) Perodua Sales Sdn Bhd 2. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

W-01(A)-477-08/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-01(A)-477-08/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Where a transfer clause expressly incorporates 'reasonableness' that term forms part of the contract and the contract test governs constructive dismissal; Perodua's conduct—requiring resignation to join NAM, issuing short-notice remote transfers, creating uncertainty about recognition of service and failing to ensure legal work permits—amounted to a repudiatory breach and mala fide exercise of managerial prerogative. The Industrial Court's findings were sustainable; High Court erred in substituting its view. Appeals allowed and Industrial Court awards reinstated.
2 Dec 2024

Saharunzaman Bin Barun 1. ) Perodua Sales Sdn Bhd 2. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

W-01(A)-473-08/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-01(A)-473-08/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held that the applicable test remained the contract test for constructive dismissal but that where the parties contractually embed a reasonableness requirement into a transfer clause the employer's exercise of transfer power must satisfy that contractual standard; on the facts Perodua's conduct — requiring resignation to join NAM, failing to preserve seniority, issuing three-day transfer notices to distant stations, failing to justify vacancies and exposing employees to work-permit illegality — manifested mala fides and a repudiatory breach, thus the Industrial Court's fin…
2 Dec 2024

Mohd Razif Bin Zainal Abidin 1. ) Perodua Sales Sdn Bhd 2. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

W-01(A)-478-08/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-01(A)-478-08/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held that where a transfer clause expressly requires transfers to be 'reasonably directed by the Company' that reasonableness is an express contractual term to be applied within the contract test for constructive dismissal; applying that test to the facts, the Company’s conduct (mandatory resignations to join NAM, abrupt 3‑day transfer notices to distant posts, failure to secure work permits, and lack of transparency about vacancies) evidenced mala fides and a repudiatory breach so the Industrial Court’s awards for constructive dismissal were reinstated and the High Court’…
23 Oct 2024

FOO JIN KEAT 1. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA 2. ) MSM PRAI BERHAD

Citation

PA-16A-10-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-16A-10-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court upheld the Industrial Court's finding that the claimant failed to prove the company breached the employment contract or evinced an intention to be no longer bound by it; the claimant further failed to return to work as per the Memorandum of Agreement and thus abandoned employment. Therefore there was no constructive dismissal; the appeal is dismissed and costs awarded to the respondent.
10 Sept 2024

ANG BEE LING Ng Eng Kian T/a Nek & Associates

Citation

BA-16-13-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-16-13-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held that the Director General had jurisdiction under s69 to determine whether the appellant was an employee; on the facts (salary payments and statutory deductions) the appellant was an employee; the Transfer Order was a bona fide exercise of the employer's implied right to transfer; the appellant abandoned her duties and the domestic inquiry lawfully found termination effective 23.08.2022; the Labour Court's calculation of the award (RM929.03) and refusal to allow additional leave entitlements was correct; the appeal was dismissed and the Labour Court decision affirmed.
10 Aug 2023

MAKAN-LAH (M) SENDIRIAN BERHAD KAVITHA A/P SHANMUGAM

Citation

BA-16-35-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-16-35-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that because the contract did not require the employee to accept transfer and the respondent clearly refused the transfer, the refusal amounted to termination attributable to the employee under s12(3)(e) Employment Act 1955; accordingly the respondent was entitled to termination benefits under the 1980 Regulations and the Assistant Director of Labour's decision awarding RM23,237.26 was correct.
9 Mar 2023

AKAR GRAPHIC CENTRE SDN BHD 1. ) DIRMAN BIN DAUD 2. ) MOHD FAIZOL BIN MOHAMED 3. ) NASRUL HANIF BIN YUSOF 4. ) MOHD FIRDAUS BIN IBRAHIM 5. ) MUHAMAD HAKIMI BIN YUSUF

Citation

BA-16-3-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-16-3-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that (1) appellant's prior conduct of paying overtime established entitlement for the respondents for September–December 2020 and the unpaid overtime must be paid; and (2) the transfer of respondents to Wawasan Dengkil Infra Sdn Bhd was not a permissible internal transfer under the contract (it made them employees of a different company) and appellant could not rely on a purported transfer to avoid liability; therefore the Labour Department's award was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
8 Dec 2021

WIRA SELATAN SECURITY SDN. BHD. 1. BALACHANDRAN A/L MUNIANDY 2. THAMEL SALVI A/P SINNAKALAI 3. DEVUNNA A/P S. SEGARAN 4. SIVAKUMAR A/L GOPALO 5. AREE A/L NARASAMAN

Citation

CB-16-4-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-16-4-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the Assistant Director of Labour permissibly inferred from the transfer documents, length of service, location change and low remuneration that the transfer to Johor Bahru was unreasonable and detrimental; failure to report did not amount to voluntary resignation and therefore respondents were entitled to termination benefits under the Employment (Termination and Lay‑Off Benefits) Regulations 1980 as assessed (RM13,387.75) and annual leave payments as ordered.