Court Refuses Leave To Hear Man S Rm4 7mil Dismissal Suit

---

 It says the former 7-Eleven financial controller’s five questions failed to cross the threshold as required under Section 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.
The Federal Court held that the five questions before it were only related to the facts of the case and had already been dealt with by the High Court and Court of Appeal.PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court has refused a former financial controller leave to appeal a ruling that rejected his constructive dismissal claim against 7-Eleven Malaysia Sdn Bhd
Abdul Nasir Ahmad was seeking RM4.7 million in damages from the popular convenience store chain.
A three-member bench, chaired by Justice Nordin Hassan, said the five questions posed by Nasir failed to cross the threshold set under Section 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.
The questions are only related to the facts of the case which have been decided by the High Court and Court of Appeal,” Nordin said.
Under the provision, leave is granted only if there are novel constitutional or legal questions of public importance raised for the first time.
Nordin said the law on Section 74 of the Contracts Act 1950 on damages is also well settled.
Justices Abu Bakar Jais and Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera also heard the application.
On June 30, 2022, Nasir was informed by 7-Eleven Malaysia of a proposed restructuring which would have altered his reporting line and the portfolios under his management.
The discussion, however, was preliminary and no final decisions were made.
However, the next day Nasir alleged constructive dismissal. He was placed on garden leave and received all contractual entitlements due under his employment agreement.
His last drawn monthly salary and allowance was RM22,966.
But instead of filing his claim with the Industrial Court, he filed a suit in the High Court seeking RM4.7 million in special damages for salary he would have earned till retirement, bonus, contribution to EPF, and medical and hospitalisation benefits.
The company succeeded in striking out the claim on grounds that it constituted an abuse of process.
The High Court last year held employment-related disputes were more appropriately handled by the Industrial Court and civil courts could only award limited damages in such matters.
Further, the court said the company had fulfilled all contractual obligations and nothing further was owed.
The Court of Appeal upheld the ruling.
Counsel Hoi Jack S’ng, Amardeep Singh Toor and Roseveen Kaur Tyndall appeared for the employer while Harneshpal Singh Bhullar and Sophia Au acted for Nasir. - FMT

---