Award 1592/2026 · 11 Sep 2026 · Kuala Lumpur
R.H. v GCH Retail (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
Claim dismissedMisconduct › Theft, Fraud, dishonesty
Type of dismissal
The Company dismissed the Claimant on 23.08.2024 for allegedly taking free-of-charge (FOC) items from the customer service counter without authorization.
Bottom line
The case turned on whether the Claimant took FOC items without authorization and whether the dismissal was fair; the Court found the misconduct proven on the balance of probabilities and the dismissal was with just cause, dismissing the Claimant's claim.
Award 1046/2026 · 6 Jul 2026 · Kuala Lumpur
N.R. v Appsmiths Sdn Bhd
Claim allowedProbation
Type of dismissal
The company terminated the claimant before her probationary period ended, stating it confirmed not to continue her employment beyond the probationary period.
Bottom line
The company failed to prove just cause or excuse for the dismissal because it did not conduct a proper performance appraisal or investigation, and the evidence it produced was insufficient to meet the required standard. The court awarded the claimant backwages of RM86,400.00.
Award 1426/2026 · 13 Aug 2026 · Kuala Lumpur
I.R. v Genpact Malaysia Sdn Bhd
Claim allowedRedundancy/Retrenchment
Type of dismissal
The Company dismissed the Claimant on the grounds of redundancy (retrenchment).
Bottom line
The case turned on whether the Company proved actual redundancy, which it failed to do because the Claimant's job functions continued to exist and were performed by others; the dismissal was found without just cause or excuse and monetary compensation of RM158,232.00 was awarded.
Award 1578/2026 · 9 Sep 2026 · Kuala Lumpur
C.H.T. v Rentwise Sdn Bhd
Claim dismissedConstructive Dismissal
Type of dismissal
The Claimant alleged constructive dismissal arising from the Company's failure to pay his salary for March and April 2024, but the Company contended the Claimant absconded from employment.
Bottom line
The case turned on whether the Claimant had proven constructive dismissal by walking out over non-payment of salary, but the Court found he had acquiesced to the salary deferment for a full year without protest and left only out of fear of disciplinary action, failing the contract test; the Claimant's case was dismissed.
Award 1826/2025 · 27 Nov 2025 · Kuala Lumpur
A.M. v Guocera Sdn Bhd
Claim allowedNegligence
Type of dismissal
The Company contended the Claimant was dismissed with just cause and excuse for negligence and lackadaisical attitude in failing to renew foreign workers' permits. The Court found the dismissal was without just cause or excuse.
Bottom line
The case turned on whether the Claimant was directly responsible for the renewal of foreign workers' permits and whether his failure to renew them constituted just cause for dismissal; the Court found the Claimant was not solely responsible and the dismissal was without just cause or excuse, awarding RM219,820.00 in total compensation.
Award 464/2026 · 16 Mar 2026 · Kuala Lumpur
G.M. v DHL Express (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
Claim dismissedMisconduct › Absenteeism or habitual lateness
Type of dismissal
The Company dismissed the Claimant for misconduct comprising unauthorized absence from work and fraudulent overtime/public holiday claims.
Bottom line
The case turned on whether the Claimant's unauthorized absence of 1 hour 30 minutes on a public holiday and the subsequent fraudulent overtime claim constituted just cause for dismissal. The Court found in favour of the Company, determining the dismissal was with just cause and excuse, and dismissed the Claimant's claim.
Award 1466/2026 · 19 Aug 2026 · Kuala Lumpur
V.S. v Symmid Corporation Sdn Bhd
Claim allowedConstructive Dismissal
Type of dismissal
The Claimant alleged constructive dismissal by the Company through a Notice of Demotion dated 2.9.2020 that demoted her and reduced her salary.
Bottom line
The case turned on whether the Company's demotion of the Claimant by two ranks with a salary reduction of more than 50% constituted a fundamental breach of the employment contract; the Court found it did, held the Claimant was constructively dismissed without just cause or excuse, and awarded RM243,240.00 after a 50% deduction for contributory misconduct.
Award 1057/2026 · 8 Jul 2026 · Kuala Lumpur
S.A.L. v Formee Sdn Bhd
Claim dismissedBreach of Contract/Fiduciary Duty
Type of dismissal
The Company stated it withdrew the offer of employment on 08/09/2022 because the Employment Pass application was not successful, and there was never a Letter of Termination dated 01/09/2022.
Bottom line
The case turned on whether the Claimant was a valid employee of the Company, and the Court found that because the Claimant could not legally work in Malaysia without a valid Employment Pass, the employment contract was frustrated and void, meaning the Claimant was never a workman under the Act and the claim was dismissed.