Court chairman Zulhelmy Hasan said the claimant, Loo Wan Leong, had proved on a balance of probabilities that his dismissal was without just cause or excuse.

“Through the chain of events and narrative evidence it is abundantly clear that the company’s sole intention was to drive the claimant out of employment by forcing him to resign without just cause or excuse,” Zulhelmy said in a 38-page award issued earlier this month.

“The court finds that the dismissal of the claimant in our present case is a termination simpliciter where the company has failed to give any reason for the dismissal,” he added.

The court found that Loo had been called to attend a meeting with the company’s then group human resource (HR) senior manager Yuza Aslinna Yeop Ariff and group chief operating officer Lian Ka Siew on Aug 6, 2021, at which he was told to resign.

The company offered to pay him two or three months’ salary in lieu of notice if he tendered his resignation, failing which he would have to face disciplinary action.

“Upon the claimant’s refusal to resign, he was asked to go on leave effective Aug 9, 2021,” Zulhelmy noted in his award, adding that Loo was also denied access to the company’s email system and ESSnet, its online employee self-service portal.

In an email to Yuza two days later, Loo offered to resign provided he was paid eight months’ salary as compensation. The company did not respond to the offer.

Thereafter, Loo sought confirmation of his employment status from Lian, Yuza and another employee through a series of emails and WhatsApp messages, but received no answer until Aug 20, when the company offered him two months’ salary as compensation.

Zulhelmy called the sum offered “ludicrous”.

Four days later, Loo reported for work but was denied access to the premises and was again told to go on leave.

On Aug 30, he emailed the company to put on record that he had been unfairly dismissed.

Zulhemy also found that Loo was only paid his salary until Aug 9 and that a petrol card issued to him was deactivated on Aug 25.

“It is abundantly clear that the company had unilaterally terminated the claimant from his employment,” the award read.

Zulhelmy noted that the company had tried to portray as if Loo had walked out of his employment to avoid disciplinary action, but said the position taken was “unsubstantiated by any cogent evidence”.

He said the threat of disciplinary action against Loo for misconduct and poor performance was merely an “afterthought” and “designed to raise a defence (to the claim) where there is none”.

Zulhelmy said the disciplinary action Loo was threatened with was neither discussed at the Aug 6 meeting nor contained in subsequent correspondence between the company and Loo.

“If the claimant’s purported mismanagement or misconduct was evident to the company, the company should have adduced it in a show cause letter and thereafter initiated a domestic inquiry.

“There was no domestic inquiry, show cause letter, warning letter nor any charge for misconduct or poor performance,” the award read.

Noting that reinstatement was not a suitable remedy in the circumstances of the case, the court awarded Loo compensation of RM158,000, calculated at the rate of one month’s salary of RM19,750 for each of his eight years service.

He was also awarded RM379,200 in back wages, calculated at 24 months’ salary but subject to a 20% deduction for post-dismissal earnings.