Industrial court of malaysia

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA
CASE NO. 13/4 – 69/2010
OMAR SUHAIMI BIN ABU HASSAN
EASTERN PACIFIC INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION BERHAD
AWARD NO. 1087 OF 2012
TUAN EDDIE YEO SOON CHYE - CHAIRMAN
DATE OF REFERENCE
DATES OF MENTION
24.02.2010; 29.03.2010; 26.04.2010; 26.05.2010; 26.06.2010; 28.07.2010; 24.01.2011; 02.03.2011; 23.05.2011; 29.11.2011; 02.05.2012; 11.06.2012; DATES OF HEARING
29.06.2011; 30.06.2011; 19.10.2011; 20.10.2011; DATE OF COMPANY'S
SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED :
DATE OF CLAIMANT'S
SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED :
DATE OF COMPANY'S
REPLY RECEIVED
REPRESENTATION
: Atan Mustaffa Bin Yussof Ahmad of Messrs
REFERENCE :
This is a ministerial reference by the Honourable Minister of Human Resources under section 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (Act 177) on 26 October 2009 arising out of the dismissal of Omar Suhaimi Bin Abu Hassan (hereinafter referred to as the
“Claimant”) on 15 July 2008 by Eastern Pacific Industrial Corporation
Berhad (hereinafter referred to as the “Respondent”).
BACKGROUND
This is a ministerial reference by the Honourable Minister of Human Resources under section 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (Act 177) on 26 October 2009 arising out of the dismissal of Omar Suhaimi Bin Abu
Hassan (“the Claimant”) on 15 July 2008 by Eastern Pacific Industrial
Corporation Berhad (“the Respondent”).
The hearing of this case commenced on 29 June 2011 was duly completed on 20 February 2012. The Respondent's solicitors, Messrs Zul Rafique & Partners filed the Company's Written Submissions on 2 April 2012, Supplementary Written Submissions on 4 April 2012 and Submissions In Reply on 11 July 2012. The Claimant's solicitors Messrs Ainul Azam & Co filed the Claimant's Written Submissions on 2 May 2012. BRIEF FACTS
The Claimant commenced employment with the Respondent Company as a General Manager, Oil & Gas Division based in Eastern Pacific Industrial Corporation Berhad (EPIC) Kuala Terengganu on 2 April 2006 as reflected in the Letter of Employment exhibited in CLB-1, page 1 with a basic salary of RM 14,000.00 per month and housing al owance of RM 1,000.00 per month. Thereafter, the position of the Claimant was redesignated as a General Manager Business Development Division with effect from 23 July 2006 as reflected in the letter of Redesignation exhibited in COB-1, page 5. Subsequently, the Claimant was offered an appointment as a Chief Executive Officer with EPIC on a contract basis for the period of two years plus another one year subject to the approval of the Board of Directors commencing 20 November 2007 with a basic salary of RM 25,000.00 per month, housing al owance of RM 2,000.00 and entertainment al owance reimbursable as per bil . The said letter of appointment is exhibited in According to paragraph 2 of the Statement in Reply and paragraph 6 of the Statement of Case, EPIC is a public listed company in the Bursa Malaysia Main Board in which Terengganu Incorporated Sdn. Bhd. (725242 – P) holds 67,682,000 shares, as reflected in CLB-1, page 14. The nature of the Company's business is investment holding and provision of management services to subsidiaries in the field of oil and gas.
The Claimant in a “Letter of Resignation as the Chief Executive
Officer” dated 15 July 2008 (exhibit CLB-1, page 18 and COB-1, page 9) to
the Respondent and the letter is reproduced herein below: “ With the deepest regret, I hereby resign as the Chief Executive As a term of my resignation, I hereby agree not to engage in any form of action in relation to my resignation and ceasing to be the Chief Executive Officer of Eastern Pacific Industrial Corporation Berhad. I also agree that payments received shal be considered as the ful and final payments for anything that is due to me as the Chief Executive Officer.
I wish to thank the members of the Board of Directors, employees and fel ow colleagues for the support accorded to me during my tenure. ” The Claimant sent an e-mail dated 15 July 2008 (exhibit CLB-1, page 19) to the recipients of the e-mail including the Company's former Chief Executive Officer, Mohd Noor Bin Mohamad. The Claimant states in the e-mail entitled “Special Board Meeting @ 14 July 2008 – Termination of “Refer to sms I sent out to members of EPIC Board at about 5.40pm to-day, 14th July 2008, I wish to hereby put on record that at no time during my discussions with En. Mohd Nor Dato Mohamad, CEO of TI, and/or with YAB MB Dato' Ahmad Said, Chairman of TI had I agreed to voluntarily resign or accepted an offer to resign.” In the Statement of Case, the Claimant contended inter alia the an order that he be reinstated to the post held by him prior to his dismissal without any loss of salary, benefits, entitlements compensation in lieu of reinstatement; and for loss of income including fixed al owances from 15 July 2008 at RM 27,000.00 per month together with statutory contributions to 19 November 2009, the last date of the Claimant's employment contract, less any payments the Claimant has received from the Respondent.
The Respondent in the Statement In Reply averred in paragraphs 12, 15 and 17 that the Claimant had tendered his resignation letter on 15 July 2008 and submits that the Claimant had voluntarily resigned from the THE CLAIMANT'S CASE & SUBMISSIONS
The relevant evidence-in-chief of CLW-1, Ayub Bin Ismail, 56 years
old who was EPIC Accounts General Manager until 5 August 2009 are as the Respondent asked the Claimant to resign and the Respondent would make an ex-gratia payment to the Claimant. CLW-1 showed the Claimant a piece of paper given by COW-1 that contained notes on how payment of 6 months the Claimant's salary to be made to the Claimant (see Question 9, after lunch time, CLW-1 was given two letter of resignation and letter of termination by COW-1 to be shown to the Claimant. CLW-1 then informed (as directed by COW-1) that if the Claimant did not resign, his services would be terminated with 24 hours' notice and a months' salary in lieu of notice. If the Claimant resigned he would receive an advisor's fees (see CLW-1 suggested to the Claimant to accept whatever compensation offered to him and if he disagree, the Claimant could appeal. The Claimant did not agree to this (see The relevant evidence-in-chief of CLW-2 (the Claimant), 56 years
old who testified in Court on 30 June 2011, 19 & 20 October 2011 are as Through a letter dated 15.07.2008 from me to the Company, which I shal refer to as “the Purported Letter of Resignation”, the Company was purportedly informed by me that I was I refer to the Purported Letter of Resignation dated 15.07.2008 at page 18 of the Claimant's Bundle of Documents.
I state that the Purported Letter of Resignation was pre- prepared by the Company and was obtained under duress, threat of inducement and that I was forced to resign from my position by the Company without any grounds. This is tantamount to my indirect dismissal from the Company without Q21: Did you receive any payment from the Company? Subsequently on the same day I received a letter back dated to 14.07.2008 purportedly being my appointment as the advisor to the new Company Chief Executive Officer. The contract amount was RM245,000.00 which was less than the basic salary and fixed al owance I would have received during the unexpired part of my employment contract from 15.07.2008 until 19.11.2009 amounting to RM445,500.00, equivalent to 16.5 months of my last drawn salary.
I refer to the purported letter of appointment as advisor to the new Company Chief Executive Officer dated 14.07.2008 at pages 23 to 25 of the Claimant's Bundle of Documents.
The relevant evidence-in-chief of CLW-3, Shah Rizal Bin Noor
Ikhsan, 43 years old, former Company's Head Corporate Communication,
Legal & Secretarial EPIC confirms drafted the contents of the letter dated 15 July 2009 (CLB-1, page 18). CLW-3 states that he was given the instruction by the Board at the Special Board Meeting held on 14 July 2008 as reflected in an extract of the minutes of the Special Board Meeting in exhibit COB-3 and the CLW-3 had been given the instruction by the Board to draft the resignation letter as stated paragraph 3.3. The extract of Minutes of the Special Board of Directors' Meeting held on 14 July 2008 (exhibit COB-2, page 3) are reproduced as follows: ROPOSED TERMINATION OF CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT
XECUTIVE OFFICER (“CEO”)
3.1. The Chairman of Nomination Committee (“NC”) reported to the Board that NC had recommended the termination of the contract of employment 3.2. The Board noted that Haji Omar had verbal y agreed to resign EPIC would pay to him six months basic salary up to November 2008; Haji Omar would resign as CEO with effect from 15 July 2008; Following his resignation as EPIC CEO, Haji Omar would be appointed Advisor until November 2008 to assist the new CEO using the transition period pursuant to a separate agreement to be entered into between EPIC and him, and As Advisor, Haji Omar would be al owed the use of a Proton Perdana (or its equivalent). The said car would be given to Haji Omar at the end of his tenure as Advisor.
3.3. It was further noted that Corporate Communication Legal & Secretarial (“CCLS”) would be preparing the necessary documents reflecting the agreed terms for Haji Omar's execution.
3.4. The Board agreed that in the event Haji Omar refused the offer of resignation and subsequent appointment as Advisor on the terms agreed, EPIC would proceed with the termination of his contract of employment by giving one month's salary in lieu of notice.
3.5. The Board then authorised the Secretary to release the appropriate announcement to the Exchange at the end of the trading day (i.e. on 14 July 2008).
3.6. With Haji Omar's resignation as CEO, the Board agreed that Haji Omar relinquish his position as member of the following committees: Learned counsel for the Claimant, Atan Mustaffa Bin Yussof Ahmad in the Written Submissions submitted inter alia the following: the Claimant has discharged his burden of proof in establishing that he was indirectly dismissed from the post of Chief Executive of the Respondent Company on 15 July 2008 by being forced to resign from his position (para. 89 written the Respondent's version that the “al eged irregularities and mismanagement issues” raised during the meeting of 6 July 2012 was a total fabrication by the Respondent (para. 28 there is no dispute by the Respondent that the Claimant was asked to choose between being terminated (i.e. the signed termination letter would be issued) and resigning by signing on the prepared resignation letter (para. 50 written submissions); when there is a clear threat that the Claimant would be dismissed if he did not resign, it does not matter how non- coercive the Respondent's conduct appears to be (para. 58 THE RESPONDENT'S CASE & SUBMISSIONS
The brief evidence of COW-1, Mohd Noor Bin Mohamad, 54 years
old, former member to the Board of Directors of the Company appointed since 1 July 2008 are in COWS-1(a) and COWS-1(b) as follows:
COWS-1(a):
Q16: Please explain the events leading to the Claimant's resignation from the services of the Company with effect from 15.7.2008.
Sometime in July 2008, there were issues concerning the general management and performance of the Company under the Claimant's stewardship as Chief Executive Officer of the Company. There were major irregularities in the Company for which the Claimant as the Chief Executive Officer would be Q17: Did the Company launch any investigation on those major No, the direction taken was that the Claimant opted for negotiations and to take the “golden handshake” package. Therefore, it was decided that the issue was best handled by friendly discussion with the Claimant on a personal basis.
I had a meeting with the Claimant on 13.7.2008 at night about Q24: Please refer to pages 10 to 12, Company's Bundle of This is the Claimant's letter of appointment dated 14.7.2008 as Independent Advisor of the Company for a period of 4 months from 14.7.2008 til 30.11.2008 at an agreed sum of In accordance with the agreement reached during our discussion on 13.7.2008, the Claimant tendered his letter of resignation and signed acceptance of the letter of appointment as Independent Advisor on 15.7.2008.
COWS-1(b)
In this letter at pages 3 & 4, CLB-2 the Claimant had requested for his services to be extended to November 2008. Can you explain whether this issue was discussed between you and the Yes, we discussed cordial y and it was agreed for him to remain in employment until November 2008 and paid to the end of that month. In return, he would tender his resignation as Chief Executive Officer of the Company and thereafter he appointed as Independent Advisor of the Company.
The relevant evidence-in-chief of COW-2, Ramli Bin Shahul
Hamid, 43 years old the Company's Chief Executive Officer who testified in
Sila rujuk kepada mukasurat 9, Ikatan Dokumen-dokumen Syarikat. Adakah anda hadir ketika Yang Menuntut Siapa lagi yang hadir ketika Yang Menuntut menandatangani En. Mohd Noor dan En. Megat Shah Rizal juga hadir ketika Yang Menuntut menandatangani surat perletekan jawatan itu.
Adakah Yang Menuntut dipaksa, diugut atau diancam supaya menandatagani surat perletakan jawatan semasa perjumpaan Learned counsel for the Respondent, Wong Keat Ching in the Written Submissions submitted inter alia the following: the Claimant's resignation was voluntary in that his wil ingness to leave the employment of the Respondent Company was brought about by the terms of a negotiated settlement to end the employment relationship (para 5.23 written submissions); the Claimant's contention that he was threatened and/or forced to resign is not only improbable but unsupported by any evidence (para 5.33 written submissions); when the Claimant tendered his resignation there were no threats but as a result of an agreement reached between parties (para 5.47 written submissions); and the Claimant had failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he was dismissed by the Respondent Company. The Claimant voluntarily resigned from the services of the Respondent Company (para 6.1 written submissions).
Pursuant to the above Written Submissions, the Respondent's counsel filed a Supplementary Written Submissions on 4 April 2012 to incorporate events leading to the Special Board of Directors Meeting on the Claimant misled the Respondent into believing that the negotiations were bona fide and his agreement to the terms events surrounding the signing of the resignation letter; the Claimant's contemporaneous email after signing the even if there was a threat (which is denied), the chain of causation linking the resignation and the threat has been broken when by the terms of a negotiated golden handshake confidential documents to be expunged from CLB-2.
THE LAW ON FORCED RESIGNATION
Forced resignation is a question of law which must be determined based on the facts prevailing in each particular case. The Court of Appeal (Low Hop Bing JCA) in the recent case of V.P. Nathan & Partners v.
Subramaniam Govindan Nair & Anor & Another Appeal (2010) 1 ILR
“It is abundantly clear to us that in Stanley Ng Peng Hon (supra); and Stephenson v The London Joint Stock Bank Ltd (1902) 19 TLR 138, the respective courts had dealt with the question of resignation as question of law, and not of facts exclusively. Of course, the
determination of this question of law must be based on the
specific reference to the facts prevailing in each particular
case.”
It is trite law that a forced resignation is no resignation at al but is a dismissal in fact. In the case of Stanley Ng Peng Hon v. AAF Pte Ltd
[1978] 1 LNS 186, Choor Singh J held that it wil be clear that the underlying basis of the doctrine of “forced resignation” is the existence of facts showing that an employee was put under compulsion to resign and that if he declined to do so, the employer would proceed to dismiss him in any event.
The burden is on the workman to establish that the employer dismissed him in a case where the fact of dismissal is disputed. The Industrial Court in the case of North South Development Sdn. Bhd. v.
Aloysies Fathianathan [2012] 2 ILR 267 at page 272 made reference to
the Court of Appeal decision in Weltex Knitwear Industries Sdn. Bhd. v.
Law Kar Toy & Anor. [1998] 1 LNS 258 where the High Court decided as
“The law is clear that if the fact of dismissal is not in dispute, the burden is on the company to satisfy the court that such dismissal was done with just cause or excuse. This is because, by the 1967 Act, al dismissal is prima facie done without just cause or excuse. Therefore, if an employer asserts otherwise the burden is on him to discharge. However, where the fact of dismissal is in dispute, it is for the workman to establish that he was dismissed by his employer. If he fails, there is no onus whatsoever on the employer to establish anything for in such a situation no dismissal has taken place and the question of it being with just cause or excuse would not at al arise: see Wong Chee Hong v. Cathay Organisation (M) Sdn. Bhd. [1988] 1 CLJ 298 (Rep); [1988] 1 CLJ 45; [1988] 1 MLJ 92 SC.” The questions that arose for determination in this case are as follows: whether the Claimant was forced to tender his resignation by the Respondent Company or whether he had resigned if the answer is in the negative, then there was no justification for the Claimant to claim that he was dismissed without just cause or excuse. If the answer is in the affirmative then the next question to be asked is whether the al eged dismissal was whether the Claimant was forced to tender his resignation by the Respondent Company or whether he had resigned if the answer is in the negative, then there was no justification for the Claimant to claim that he was dismissed without just cause or excuse. If the answer is in the affirmative then the next question to be asked is whether the al eged dismissal was with or without just cause or excuse.
COURT'S EVALUATION AND FINDINGS
When evaluating the totality of the evidence adduced by the Claimant and the Respondent, the Court must now ask this question i.e. whether the Claimant was forced to tender his resignation. Resignation under compulsion was no resignation in law and amounted to a forced dismissal. To determine whether the Claimant had voluntarily resigned or had been forced into resigning, the conduct of the Respondent and its representative was material to this issue. The Court wil now scrutinize the whole chain of event as forming one continuous story to find out whether what happened to the workman (the Claimant) was just and equitable.
Negotiations leading up to the Claimant's resignation
The Claimant confirmed in his cross-examination that he had discussions with En. Mohd Noor on 13 July 2008 at 10.00pm regarding his resignation or termination of services by the Respondent Company. In this discussion, the Claimant confirms that he had insisted that his contract was for two years ending on 19 November 2010 and requested for a severance package equivalent to the balance of the contract period. In the discussion, it was concluded that a new CEO would be appointed. Earlier at 2.45 pm on the same day, the Claimant contacted and met the Terengganu Menteri Besar who is the Chairman of Terengganu Incorporated, Dato' Ahmad Bin The Claimant concedes to the suggestions by the Respondent's Q78: Given that a new CEO would be appointed, the only option is Q84: You chose to sign the resignation letter rather than to be Q85: Is it true, you signed the resignation letter, after you spoke to CLW-1 who advised you to accept first any compensation that Q88: You confirmed the letter of resignation in COB-1 page 9 and the letter of appointment as independent Advisor in pages 10 – 12 was signed one after the other on 15 July 2008? The Respondent's counsel further suggested to the Claimant that by signing the resignation letter and accepting the payment of RM 245,000.00 and signing the letter of appointment as Independent Advisor and agreeing on the date for the cheque to be issued on 16 July 2008, the Claimant had misled the Respondent to believe that he had agreed to an amicable resolution of his exit as CEO of the Respondent Company. There was not an iota of evidence was adduced by the Claimant to show that he was threatened or that force was applied by COW-1 or COW-2 to make the Claimant sign the resignation letter.
Appointment as Independent Advisor to the Chief Executive Officer
The Claimant was offered an appointment with EPIC to the position as an Independent Advisor to the CEO on a contract basis commencing 14 July 2008 with a contract sum of RM 245,000.00 and the contract period shal be for a period of four (4) months til 30 November 2008. This letter of appointment signed by the Chairman of EPIC, Dato' Mohamed Awang Tera is reflected in COB-1, page 10. The acceptance of the offer was reflected by the Claimant's signature on 15 July 2008 (COB-1, page 12).
Whether the Claimant's resignation was forced or voluntary
The Claimant confirmed in his cross-examination that his claim was based on the contention that he was forced to sign the resignation letter on 15 July 2008 at 5.40pm (exhibit CLB-1, page18 and COB-1, page 9). According to the Claimant, he was asked to sign the pre-prepared resignation letter failing which a termination letter would be issued. The Claimant further confirms that a Bank Islam cheque of RM 245,000.00 dated 17 July 2008 (COB-1, page 13) was issued by the EPIC to the Claimant and that according to COB-2, EPIC Bank Islam Current Account Statement (COB- 2 page 1), the cheque of RM 245,000.00 payment was cleared on 22 July 2008. The Claimant confirms receiving the amount of RM 245,000.00. It was also in evidence that the Claimant in the one week period (15 – 22 July 2008) did not write to Dato' Muhatar Abdul ah (Chairman of Nomination Committee) and Dato' Mohamed Awang Tera (Chairman of the Company) to protest that he was forced to resign or write to withdraw the resignation The Claimant confirms writing an amicable e-mail on 16 July 2008 at 12.03am (exhibit CLB-2, page 38) to the Chairman and Directors of EPIC and the relevant extract of the e-mail are as follows: “As you are already aware, I have obliged the shareholders' request to resign as CEO of EPIC effective 15th July 2008.” In the case of Harpers Trading (M) Sdn. Bhd. Butterworth v.
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-Pekerja Perdagangan [1988] 2 ILR
314 the Industrial Court decided as follows: “It is a wel -established principle of industrial law that if it is proved that an employer offered the employee the alternatives of “resign or be sacked” and without anything more, the employee resigned, that would constitute a dismissal. The principle is said to be one of causation - the causation being the threat of the sack. It is the existence of the threat of being sacked which causes the employee to be wil ing to resign. But where that wil ingness is brought about by some other consideration, and the actual causation is not so much the sacking but other accepted considerations in the state of mind of the reigning employee, then it has to be said that he resigned voluntarily because it was beneficial to him to do so, that then there has therefore been no dismissal.” On the totality of the evidence adduced and having read and considered the written submissions of both parties, it is the finding of this Court that the Claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he was forced to resign from EPIC. The Claimant had resigned voluntarily from the services of the Respondent as there was overwhelming evidence to show that the Claimant's wil ingness to leave the employment of the Respondent Company brought about by the terms of a negotiated settlement to end the employment relationship. The terms of a negotiated golden handshake settlement were accepted by the Claimant. The evidence of COW-1 was that there were irregularities and mismanagement issues relating to the Claimant's responsibilities and performance that warranted his resignation and that the Claimant discussed with COW-1 the “golden handshake” package. The relevant evidence of COW-1 are as follows: Q22: What was the outcome of the discussion? After long discussion, the Claimant agreed in principal that the following terms were to be represented to the Special Board of Directors' meeting on 14.7.2008 as the terms of his The Company would pay the Claimant up to November The Claimant would resign as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company with effect from 15.7.2008; Following the Claimant's resignation as the Company's Chief Executive Officer, the Claimant would be appointed as Independent Advisor of the Company til November 2008 to assist the new Chief Executive Q23: Were the terms of the Claimant's resignation minuted at the Special Board of Directors' meeting on 14.7.2008? Yes. A copy of the extract of minutes of the Special Board of Directors' meeting held on 14.7.2008 are attached here.
A detailed scrutiny of the contents resignation letter demonstrated that the Claimant had signed the resignation letter without any qualification and without writing his protest. The evidence was overwhelming clear that when the Claimant tendered his resignation there were no threats but as a result of an agreement reached between parties. In furtherance to this, the Claimant signed the letter of appointment as Independent Advisor and further received monetary benefit in the sum of RM 245,000.00. Therefore, based on the factual matrix and circumstances of this case, the Claimant's contention that he was forced to resign is improbable and unsupportable by any evidence. The submissions of the Claimant that “when there is a clear threat that the Claimant would be dismissed if he did not resign, it does not matter how non-coercive the Company's conduct appears to be” and that “the Claimant has discharged his burden of proof in establishing that he was directly dismissed from the post of Chief Executive Officer on 15 July 2008 by being forced to resign from his position” are devoid of any merits.
Whether confidential documents ought to be expunged from CLB-2
The Respondent prays in paragraph 8 of the Company's Supplementary Written Submissions that the confidential documents referred to in the Index to CLB-2 as follows: Presentation Slides to EPIC Board of Directors, Special Letter from Bugs Tan To Mr. Omar Suhaimi dated Board Papers regarding the Mushtari Engineering and Trading Sdn Bhd (“MET”)-Licensing Issue on the 10th Management Committee Meeting, 03/04/2008; Item No. 10: Eastern Pacific Industrial Corporation Berhad, Business Development Department, Project-Progress update as Item No. 13: EPIC's Three-Years' Business Outlook, Targets & Timeline Slides presentations presented to 63rd EPIC Board of Directors Meeting on 15/04/2008; Item No. 15: Memo Fax Transmission from Terengganu Inc. to TRICOR/EPIC dated 25/06/2008 to enclosed the nomination of Representative Directors to the Board of Item No. 16: Letter from Terengganu Inc. to Company Secretary of Item No. 17: EPIC Shared Values-SPICE, Briefing for Management Item No. 18: EPIC-Perutusan Tahun Baru on 21/10/2008 by the Item No. 19: Terengganu Fabricators Sdn Bhd, Business Plan from Item No. 20: EPIC-Kemaman Bay Landside Traffic Study Final be expunged as the confidential documents belong to the Respondent Company. The Claimant confirms in cross-examination that al these documents belong to the Respondent Company and the documents contained confidential information. The Claimant confirms that he had not sought the permission of the Respondent for the removal of the documents. Based on the principles of equity and good conscience the confidential documents in CLB-2 (except documents in item No. 5) which were obtained il egal y and without the Company's permission ought to be expunged. The documents in Item No. 5 (Presentation Slides to EPIC Board of Directors, Special Board Meeting dated Tuesday, 01/07/2008) of CLB-2 are not to be expunged as the Claimant had made reference in Question 24 of his witness CONCLUSION
In conclusion, taking into account the totality of the evidence adduced by both parties and bearing in mind section 30(5) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 to act according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case without regard to technicalities and legal form, this Court finds that the Claimant had voluntarily tendered his resignation, hence there was no dismissal. The consequential issue of whether the dismissal was with just cause or excuse does not arise. The Claimant's case HANDED DOWN AND DATED THIS 9TH AUGUST 2012.
( EDDIE YEO SOON CHYE )

Source: http://malaysianlaw.my/attachments/Omar_v_Eastern%20_67677.pdf