Case:

Brief Facts:

• The Plaintiff Ashvine Hari Krishnan [Ashvine] was employed by 7 Eleven Malaysia Sdn Bhd [7-11] as its Senior Manager of Human Resources pursuant to a contract of employment dated 9 Oct 2019 [Employment contract].
  
  
• Ashvine initially reported to Kung Veng Sze.
  
  
• Subsequently she reported to Liew Kian Meng [Liew] the GM of Human Resources for 7-11.
  
  
• Liew then raised concerns about Ashvine’s performance.
  
  
• Liew conducted an appraisal of Ashvine’s performance but Ashvine claims the appraisal was inherently unfair and that she was being bullied and harassed by Liew.
  
  
• Problems between the parties continued and eventually Ashvine resigned vide letter dated 3 May 2021. The letter made reference to certain allegations which were directed at Liew.
  
  
• 7-11 accepted the resignation vide letter dated 4 May 2021 but did not address the allegations raised against Liew in that letter.
  
  
• 7-11 however, responded to the allegations in their letter dated 20 May 2021. Subsequently both parties exchanged letters but the dispute was not resolved.
  
  
• Eventually on 26 Oct 2021, Ashvine filed a claim in the Civil Courts. The claim essentially was she had been “constructively dismissed”.
  
  
• 7-11 filed an application in the High Court claiming that the suit cannot be sustained because a complaint of Constructive Dismissal can be only be lodged in the Industrial Relations Dept pursuant to the Industrial Relations Act 1967 [the Act].
  
  
• Therefore, 7-11 asked that the claim be dismissed by the High Court.
  
  
• The High Court did not dismiss the claim by Ashvine.
  
  
• 7-11 then appealed to the Court of Appeal

THE DECISION OF COURT OF APPEAL (COA) – 7-11’s APPEAL ALLOWED

• The COA held that it was incumbent on Ashvine to invoke the statutory remedy under the Act instead of filing a claim in the civil courts.
  
  
• The Industrial Court can only award what is permitted by the Act – reinstatement [or salary in lieu of reinstatement] with back wages.
  
  
• Whilst an employee might file a claim in the civil courts, such a claim was confined as a matter of law to “meagre” damages in the form of salary in lieu of notice.
  
  
• In the present case there was nothing due to Ashvine as all salaries have been paid.
  
  
• Hence, even if the case in the civil courts proceeds to trial and Ashvine succeeds in proving constructive dismissal, she would not be entitled to salary in lieu of notice as that has already been paid. Which means she will get no damages/compensation even if she wins.
  
  
• If the claim is for compensation for wrongful dismissal [loss of employment] then it was a claim which ought to be ventilated vide the statutory dispute mechanism i.e. the Industrial Court and not the civil court.