Case Citation: Nor Asma bt Johor v Felda D’ Saji Sdn Bhd [2026] 1 ILJ 28
Prepared by : Nurul Fatihah binti Mohamad Arof
The Employee’s Journey Through the Courts
After 32 years of service, an employee pursued a constructive dismissal claim against her employer. Although the Industrial Court initially decided in the employer’s favour, the employee successfully challenged that award through judicial review.
The High Court quashed the earlier award and returned the matter to the Industrial Court to determine the appropriate remedy. The employer’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was subsequently dismissed.
Could the Dismissal Be Reconsidered?
When the matter returned to the Industrial Court, a key question was whether the dismissal itself could be reconsidered.
The Industrial Court held that the finding of constructive dismissal had already been conclusively determined and could not be reopened. Its task was confined to deciding the relief the employee should receive.
Why Compensation Was Awarded Instead of Reinstatement
The Court considered reinstatement but found it unsuitable in the circumstances. The employee no longer wished to return and explained that she did not believe a harmonious working relationship could be restored. The Court also considered the considerable time that had passed since her dismissal.
It therefore awarded monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement, together with backwages.
How the Award Was Calculated
The Court awarded:
- RM118,400 in compensation in lieu of reinstatement, calculated at one month’s basic salary of RM3,700 for each of her 32 completed years of service.
- RM88,800 in backwages, representing 24 months’ salary, without deductions for post-dismissal earnings.
The total award was RM207,200, subject to statutory deductions. Payment was ordered within 30 days, with interest at 8% per annum accruing on any unpaid balance from the 31st day.
Why This Decision Matters
The decision explains how compensation and backwages are assessed when reinstatement is unsuitable. It also illustrates that proceedings confined to remedies cannot be used to reopen a dismissal finding that has already been conclusively determined through the appeal process.
Nurul Fatihah’s Involvement
Nurul Fatihah assisted counsel for the claimant in the Court Appeal and Industrial Court proceedings.
