Case:

Brief Facts:

• The Claimant Mohan Vythalingam [Mohan] started working with KTMB on 1.9.1983 as Pembantu Lokomotif Rendah. In 1992 Mohan was promoted to Pembantu Lokomotif Rendah [Kanan].
  
  
• On 14.9.1994 Mohan was offered the position of a Locomotive Driver. This position was confirmed on 21.9.1994.
  
  
• On 24.12.2014 Mohan [who had since obtained his MBA] was assigned in an acting position as an Acting Industrial Relations Executive for 6 months. After the 6 months Mohan was reassigned as Acting Executive, Rules and Regulations. For both Acting positions, Mohan was paid an Acting allowance.
  
  
• On 26.5.2016 KTMB informed Mohan that effective 1.6.2016 Mohan would be transferred back to the Sentul Depot as EMU Driver which is Mohan’s original designation.
  
  
• The only impact of this was that he would cease to get his acting allowance.
  
  
• Mohan was unhappy and sought an explanation from KTMB.
  
  
• KTMB responded by saying an acting position was temporary and it was KTMB’s prerogative and discretion to transfer staff including transferring Mohan to his original post.
  
  
• Mohan deemed the transfer a demotion and treated himself as Constructively Dismissed.
  
  
• The matter was referred to the Industrial Relations Department and eventually to the Industrial Court.

THE DECISION OF INDUSTRIAL COURT (IC)

• The IC allowed Mohan’s claim and ruled that he was constructively dismissed.
  
  
• The IC also awarded Mohan RM95,152.00 as back wages and 1 1/3 months wages in lieu of reinstatement.
  
  
• KTMB challenged the decision of the IC that Mohan was constructively dismissed at the High Court.
  
  
• Mohan challenged the decision of the IC on the issue of quantum of compensation awarded at the High Court.

THE DECISION OF HIGH COURT (HC)

• The HC agreed with the IC that allowed Mohan’s claim and ruled that he was constructively dismissed. Therefore, KTMB’s challenge was dismissed.
  
  
• The HC also ruled that IC’s award of damages was correct and dismissed Mohan’s challenge.
  
  
• Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeal.

THE DECISION OF COURT OF APPEAL (COA) – KTMB’s APPEAL ALLOWED and MOHAN’S APPEAL DISMISSED

• The COA held that the employment contract in question that must be referred to is the one dated 14.9.1994 which employed Mohan as a locomotive driver.
  
  
• The was no other employment contract executed by KTMB and Mohan.
  
  
• Although Mohan was offered the acting position twice, there was no communication or agreement which states that the Employment Agreement dated 14.9.1994 was to be changed.
  
  
• The binding agreement was for Mohan to be employed as a locomotive driver.
  
  
• Requiring KTMB to give reasons for the reassigning of the acting positions would transform the temporary acting positions into permanent ones.
  
  
• The 2 reassignments were not tainted with mala fide and Mohan was adequately informed that the acting positions were temporary.
  
  
• Therefore, the COA concluded Mohan was not constructively dismissed.