Compensation in lieu of reinstatement: a review of Unilever (M) Holdings Sdn Bhd v. So Lai & Anor
This article discusses the powers of the Industrial Court to award compensation in lieu of reinstatement to an employee who has passed the compulsory retirement age. The discussion is based on the recent Federal Court decision in Unilever (M) Holdings Sdn Bhd v. So Lai & Anor, which had affirmed...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
The Malaysian Current Law Journal Sdn Bhd
2015
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://irep.iium.edu.my/43703/ http://irep.iium.edu.my/43703/ http://irep.iium.edu.my/43703/1/ARTICLE_compensation_in_lieu_of_reinstatement.pdf |
| Summary: | This article discusses the powers of the Industrial Court to award compensation in lieu of reinstatement to an employee who has passed the compulsory retirement age. The discussion is based on the recent Federal Court decision in Unilever (M) Holdings Sdn Bhd v. So Lai & Anor, which had affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision in Sabah Forest
Industries Sdn Bhd v. Industrial Court Malaysia & Anor. In the Sabah Forest Industries case, the Court of Appeal held inter alia, that compensation in lieu of reinstatement cannot be ordered if at the date of the award, the claimant has passed his compulsory retirement age. The above
proposition of law was reaffirmed in Unilever (M) Holdings Sdn Bhd v. So Lai & Anor. In Unilever’s case, the claimant, before he was dismissed, had been in the employment of the company for 17 years. At the time of his dismissal, he was 14 months away from his mandatory retirement age of 55 years. However, when the award was made by the Industrial Court, several years after his dismissal, the claimant was already beyond his retirement age. |
|---|