Analysis of Mohd Termizi bin Hussein v. Wilatrans Engineering Sdn. Bhd. : A Case of Unjust Dismissal

Introduction

The Industrial Court case of Mohd Termizi bin Hussein v. Wilatrans Engineering Sdn. Bhd. (Award No. 763 of 2025), Adjudicated on 15 May 2025 at the Industrial Court of Malaysia, Perak Branch, under the chairmanship of Y.A. Tuan Zulhelmy bin Hasan, addressed a significant dispute concerning the termination of a probationary employee during sick leave (Industrial Court of Malaysia, 2025). This case highlights critical principles of industrial jurisprudence, particularly regarding the termination of employment on medical grounds and the rights of probationary employees under the Industrial Relations Act 1967. This article examines the background, perspectives of the Claimant and Respondent, court findings, and remedies awarded, emphasizing the case’s implications for employers and employees in Malaysia.

Background of the Case

Mohd Termizi bin Hussein, referred to as the Claimant (PYM), was employed by Wilatrans Engineering Sdn. Bhd. as a Technician on a six-month probationary period starting 13 September 2023, with a monthly salary of RM2,000 and an additional RM200 allowance (Industrial Court of Malaysia, 2025). On 7 December 2023, while performing maintenance duties assigned by the company, the Claimant was involved in a road accident in Kluang, Johor, resulting in severe spinal injuries (fractures at T11 and L1). He was hospitalized from 7 to 15 December 2023 and transferred to Hospital Raja Permaisuri Bainun in Ipoh, Perak, for further treatment. Medical assessments confirmed permanent disability, and the Claimant was granted extended sick leave until 22 May 2024, supported by a Light Duty Certificate restricting him from heavy lifting, prolonged standing, and operating heavy machinery (Industrial Court of Malaysia, 2025).

The company issued a Notice of Termination of Probation on 5 January 2024, effective from 5 January to 4 February 2024, citing economic downturn and organizational restructuring. The Claimant received his final salary of RM2,186.35 for January 2024 and RM1,000 ex gratia compensation (Industrial Court of Malaysia, 2025). Dissatisfied, the Claimant reported the matter to the Department of Industrial Relations on 27 February 2024, leading to a referral to the Industrial Court under Section 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967.

Claimant’s Perspective

The Claimant argued that his termination was unjust, arbitrary, and lacked valid grounds. He contended that Wilatrans Engineering Sdn. Bhd. failed to provide evidence of poor performance or procedural lapses, asserting that his work as a Technician was satisfactory prior to the accident (Industrial Court of Malaysia, 2025). The Claimant emphasized that his termination occurred during medically certified sick leave due to an “employment injury” under Section 2(6) of the Employees’ Social Security Act 1969, arguing that this constituted victimization and unfair labor practices (Malaysia, 1969). He sought reinstatement to his original position without loss of salary, seniority, or benefits, or an alternative remedy, asserting that the company’s actions were mala fide and violated principles of natural justice (Industrial Court of Malaysia, 2025).

Respondent’s Perspective

Wilatrans Engineering Sdn. Bhd. defended the termination, citing economic challenges and organizational needs. The company highlighted a downturn in the construction and engineering sectors, rising operational costs, and global market instability as necessitating workforce reduction and restructuring (Industrial Court of Malaysia, 2025). The Claimant’s termination was described as an isolated decision due to the absence of suitable vacant positions and his medical inability to perform operational duties. The company claimed compliance with internal policies, providing a reference letter, assistance with PERKESO disability benefits, and an RM1,000 ex gratia payment. It argued that the decision, made after Board discussions and consultations with PERKESO and the Department of Labour, was neither arbitrary nor unfair (Industrial Court of Malaysia, 2025).

Legal Principles and Court Findings

The Industrial Court applied established precedents to evaluate the case. Key principles included:

• Burden and Standard of Proof: The employer must prove dismissal was with just cause or excuse, based on the balance of probabilities, acting with equity and good conscience (Telekom Malaysia Kawasan Utara v. Krishnan Kutty Sanguni Nair & Anor, 2002).

• Termination on Medical Grounds: Employers must obtain sufficient medical advice, allow reasonable recovery time, and demonstrate sympathy, understanding, and compassion, often requiring referral to a Medical Board (Abdul Latif Abdul Malik v. Malaysia Airport Sdn. Bhd., 2022; MHS Aviation Sdn. Bhd. v. Zainol Akmar Mohd Noor, 2001).

• Probationary Employees’ Rights: Probationary employees are protected against arbitrary dismissal, requiring just cause or excuse (Khaliah Abbas v. Pesaka Capital Corp Sdn. Bhd., 1997; Dorsett Regency Hotel (M) Sdn. Bhd. v. Andrew Jayadass James Ambroze, 2003).

The court found that the company failed to provide documentary evidence of economic necessity, restructuring plans, or the Claimant’s poor performance, relying solely on oral testimony (Industrial Court of Malaysia, 2025). The failure to refer the Claimant to a Medical Board, despite his permanent disability and light-duty certification, rendered the termination hasty and lacking in compassion. The court recognized the injury as an “employment injury” under the Employees’ Social Security Act 1969, noting the company’s failure to consider extending the probationary period or accommodating light duties (Malaysia, 1969). The termination was ruled to be without just cause or excuse.

Remedies Awarded

Reinstatement was deemed inappropriate due to the Claimant’s permanent disability and strained employment relationship. Following precedent, the court awarded monetary compensation (Koperasi Serbaguna Sanya Bhd. (Sabah) v. Dr. James Alfred (Sabah) & Anor, 2000). Back wages were calculated at RM2,186.35 per month for 11 months (4 February 2024 to 21 January 2025), totaling RM24,049.00. After deducting the RM1,000 ex gratia payment and 10% of post-dismissal earnings, the final award was RM20,644.10, payable within 30 days (Industrial Court of Malaysia, 2025).

Implications

This case reinforces procedural and substantive requirements for terminating probationary employees, particularly those on sick leave due to employment injuries. Employers must obtain medical advice, engage in consultation, provide evidence of necessity, and comply with statutory protections (Malaysia, 1969). Employees are affirmed in their right to challenge unfair dismissals, highlighting the Industrial Court’s role in equitable labor practices.

Conclusion

The Mohd Termizi bin Hussein v. Wilatrans Engineering Sdn. Bhd. case establishes a precedent for protecting probationary employees in Malaysia, particularly those terminated during sick leave due to workplace injuries (Industrial Court of Malaysia, 2025). The ruling emphasizes fairness, compassion, and adherence to legal standards, balancing employee rights with practical considerations through monetary compensation.

References

• Abdul Latif Abdul Malik v. Malaysia Airport Sdn. Bhd. [2022] 3 ILR 598.

• Dorsett Regency Hotel (M) Sdn. Bhd. v. Andrew Jayadass James Ambroze [2003] 2 ILR 740.

• Industrial Court of Malaysia (2025) Mohd Termizi bin Hussein v. Wilatrans Engineering Sdn. Bhd. Award No. 763 of 2025.

• Khaliah Abbas v. Pesaka Capital Corp Sdn. Bhd. [1997] 3 CLJ 827.

• Koperasi Serbaguna Sanya Bhd. (Sabah) v. Dr. James Alfred (Sabah) & Anor [2000] 3 CLJ 758.

• Malaysia (1969) Employees’ Social Security Act 1969 (Act 4). Kuala Lumpur: Government of Malaysia.

• MHS Aviation Sdn. Bhd. v. Zainol Akmar Mohd Noor [2001] 2 ILR 336.

• Telekom Malaysia Kawasan Utara v. Krishnan Kutty Sanguni Nair & Anor [2002] 3 CLJ 314.