Back pay for ex-veep whose contract was not renewed

KUALA LUMPUR: A former vice-president of a company was awarded RM543,200 in back wages and compensation after an Industrial Court held that his dismissal by his employer on grounds that his contract had expired was unjustified.

Industrial Court chairman Anna Ng Fui Choo ruled that Ahmad Zahri Mirza Abdul Hamid, 42, “was at all times under a permanent contract of employment” with AIMS Cyberjaya Sdn Bhd.

Ahmad Zahri, who is a Singaporean, was dismissed on Oct 19, 2013.

Ng said that Ahmad Zahri had been consistent in relating the events from the negotiations leading up to the terms of his contract of employment.

On the other hand, the company failed to produce any evidence to rebut Ahmad Zahri’s assertion about the reason for the fixed-term clause in the contract, she said.

“The court rejects the company’s argument that it had not renewed the claimant’s contract which had expired.

“Since the company had terminated the claimant on the grounds that his contract had expired, the dismissal was therefore found to be without just cause,” Ng said in the award, dated April 1, made available to The Star.

Ng, however, held that it would not be in the interests of industrial harmony to reinstate Ahmad Zahri to his former position.

“His position could have been filled up after his termination as the company’s business had to go on,” she said.

She awarded RM465,600 in back wages and RM77,600 in compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

In the claimant’s case, Ahmad Zahri contended that he had at all times served the company as its business development vice-president and that he had received letters of renewal from his employer on an annual basis from 2010 until 2012. He held a permanent working pass to work in Malaysia.

When contacted by The Star yesterday, his lawyer Anand Ponnudurai said that the Industrial Court’s decision illustrated that employees who were dismissed on grounds that their contracts had expired might still have recourse in the Industrial Court on the basis that they were under a permanent contract of employment but under the guise of a “fixed-term contract”.