Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Compensation in lieu of reinstatement

Legal area

Court

29 May 2025

Chang Chuen Hwa South Island Plastics Sdn Bhd

Citation

PA-16A-2-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-16A-2-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The claimant was properly found to be a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Act and therefore subject to the Minimum Retirement Age Act 2012 which mandates retirement at 60; statutory retirement cannot be waived by conduct, reinstatement was impossible as the claimant was over 60 when the Award was delivered, and therefore no compensation in lieu of reinstatement was awardable; appeal dismissed and Industrial Court decision affirmed.
12 Nov 2024

WOON KIM CHOY 1. ) ACEXIDE TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD 2. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

W-01(A)-198-03/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-01(A)-198-03/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

On the totality of evidence (register of employees, documentary references to salaries, EA forms, EPF and SOCSO contributions, job duties and remuneration), the appellants qualified as "workman" under s2 IRA notwithstanding their directorships; Industrial Court had jurisdiction and appellants were dismissed without just cause; therefore appellate court quashed prior dismissals and awarded compensation in lieu of reinstatement and backwages in specified sums.
12 Nov 2024

CHANG HENG KEONG 1. ) ACEXIDE TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD 2. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

W-01(A)-199-03/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-01(A)-199-03/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that on the totality of evidence (employee register, salary nomenclature in financials, EPF/SOCSO contributions, PCB/EA forms, roles and remuneration) the appellants qualified as 'workman' under s 2 IRA despite being directors; the Industrial Court erred in law by finding lack of jurisdiction; the High Court's affirmation was set aside; the Court awarded compensation in lieu of reinstatement and backwages and ordered interest and costs as appropriate.
29 Feb 2024

K-GE RESTAURANT SDN. BHD. GERARD A/L ELIAS

Citation

PA-16A-8-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-16A-8-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed the Industrial Court: the employer's non‑payment and unlawful unilateral deductions were a fundamental breach going to the root of the employment contract, entitling the employee to treat himself as constructively dismissed; delay in acting did not amount to condonation given COVID‑19 and employer assurances; reinstatement was inappropriate and the proper remedy was monetary, calculated on a final monthly salary of RM3,364 resulting in an award of RM57,524.40.
21 Mar 2022

IFLIX SDN BHD JOLENE LEE MIAO CHI

Citation

WA-25-77-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-77-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court dismissed the judicial review application because the Industrial Court's factual findings — including that the medical certificate was unchallenged, the respondent merely collected seminar notes, the deadlines were unreasonable given illness, and a further charge was not pleaded — were supported by evidence and therefore not susceptible to judicial review; the Industrial Court's award was not tainted by illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety.
13 Oct 2021

SAVITHRI A/P VELLO 1. ) EVERSENDAI CONSTRUCTIONS (M) SDN. BHD. 2. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

AA-25-18-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-25-18-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Industrial Court erred in law by reducing backwages by 70% without evidence or reasons; once the Applicant testified under oath that she was unemployed post-dismissal the evidential burden shifted to the employer to rebut and the employer failed to do so, therefore the 70% deduction is quashed; MSS payments are deductible to avoid double recovery and the MSS quantum is a factual finding not disturbed.
21 Sept 2021

ASKOMA SDN BHD 1. MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA 2. CHEE KWAN YEE

Citation

JA-25-30-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-25-30-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court found the Industrial Court's conclusion that tardiness did not constitute misconduct and that the employer had condoned the conduct was unreasonable and unsupported by documentary evidence; because the Claimant repeatedly ignored warnings and failed to attend mandatory management meetings, her dismissal was justified, the Award was quashed and the judicial review allowed with costs.
12 May 2021

DHL Express (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd 1. Mahkamah Perusahaan Malaysia 2. Kintan binti Bachik

Citation

JA-25-5-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-25-5-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

High Court found no reviewable error: the Industrial Court did not transgress illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety; the frustration argument was a later afterthought and could not displace the Industrial Court's finding that dismissal for misconduct was without just cause or excuse; the applicant had effectively abrogated its own winding-down scheme by dismissing the employee and thus the Industrial Court's award of compensation and backwages stands.
17 Feb 2020

WY CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD 1. MARINA BINTI ABDUL MOIN 2. MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

WA-25-274-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-274-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court upheld the Industrial Court's factual findings that the employer failed to prove redundancy or financial difficulty; therefore dismissal was without just cause and the Industrial Court's award of 10 months' backwages (within the 24‑month statutory limit) was lawful; judicial review dismissed.