Case:

Brief Facts:

• The Claimant (“Mohan”) started working with the Company, Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad (“KTMB”) on 1 September 1983 as a “Pembantu Lokomotif Rendah”. Subsequently, he was promoted and confirmed as a Locomotive Driver with a monthly salary of RM1,042.80.
  
  
• On 24 December 2014, Mohan was assigned as Acting Industrial Relations Executive (Grade N03G05), for a fixed period of six (6) months, from 26 December 2014 to 25 June 2015, receiving an acting allowance of RM532.78 per month, on top of his existing salary as a locomotive driver.
  
  
• After the end of the six (6) months period, KTMB reassigned Mohan as Acting Executive, Rules & Regulations (Grade N05AG07) with effect from 30 July 2015. An acting allowance of RM518.00 per month was paid to him, on top of his existing salary as a locomotive driver.
  
  
• About ten (10) months later, through a letter dated 26 May 2016, KTMB informed Mohan that effective from 1 June 2016, he will be transferred back to the Sentul Depot as EMU Driver (Grade A07G10), which is his original designation. The only impact of this transfer is that his acting allowance would cease.
  
  
• Mohan was unhappy with the transfer back to his original position and wrote a letter dated 6 June 2016, seeking an explanation from KTMB. KTMB in its response explained that the position of Acting Executive, Rules & Regulations was just temporary and it was KTMB’s prerogative and discretion to make any staff transfer, including Mohan’s transfer to his original post.
  
  
• Mohan refused to accept KTMB’s explanation and the transfer, which he deemed as a demotion, and tendered his resignation through a letter dated 13 June 2016. Subsequently, he initiated a claim under constructive dismissal against KTMB.

THE DECISION OF INDUSTRIAL COURT (IC)

• The IC found in favour of Mohan.

THE DECISION OF HIGH COURT (HC)

• The HC held that the transfer from an Acting Executive, Rules and Regulation Unit to a non-executive post with lesser functions and responsibilities, without the acting allowance, would amount to a demotion. The HC also ruled that any unilateral alteration in employment conditions that results in a decrease in earnings and a change in job duties constitutes a fundamental violation of the contract.

THE DECISION OF COURT OF APPEAL (COA)

• The COA found in favour of KTMB and dismissed the IC award.
  
  
• The COA held that the acting positions were given on a temporary basis and were never intended to be permanent. Mohan was adequately informed that the two acting assignments were temporary and there was no express or implied promise made by KTMB that the two acting positions offered to Mohan would become permanent.
  
  
• The COA highlighted that if Mohan had rejected the second reassignment, he would have reported himself back to the position as Locomotive Driver (A07G10).
  
  
• With respect to the abovementioned reasons, the COA held that KTMB did not breach a fundamental term of Mohan’s contract of employment that would constitute constructive dismissal.