Skip to main content

How back wages are calculated in Malaysian wrongful dismissal cases

Deep Dive: How Telekom Malaysia Berhad v Ramli bin Akim Impacts Malaysian Employment Law

A crucial High Court ruling changes how back wages are calculated in wrongful dismissal cases. This case impacts how legal practitioners argue statutory limits, how HR professionals assess termination risks, and how employees are protected during long court delays.
1. Statutory Law Overrules Practice Notes
The central conflict in this case was whether a court-issued guideline can restrict a right granted by Parliament.
  • The Law: Section 30 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (IRA 1967) governs the Industrial Court’s power to grant monetary awards.
  • The Gap: The written Act does not set a maximum cap on the months of back wages a court can award.
  • The Ruling: The High Court ruled that statutory law reigns supreme over administrative guidelines.
  • The Takeaway: Judges can legally award back wages beyond the standard 24-month limit outlined in Industrial Court Practice Notes.
2. Who Pays for Court Delays?
Industrial court disputes can take years to resolve. This judgment sets a clear precedent for who carries the financial burden of these systemic delays.
  • For Employees: If you did not cause the court delay, you should not penalised for it.
  • For Employers & HR: Because the employer's initial wrongful dismissal triggered the lawsuit, the employer must bear the financial consequences of any lengthy legal process.
3. Business Failures and Post-Dismissal Income
When an employee is wrongfully dismissed, they are required to mitigate their losses by looking for alternative income. The court clarified how failed business attempts affect final payouts:
  • Unemployment Status: If an employee attempts to start a business after being fired and it fails, they are still legally considered unemployed during that period.
  • Deduction Rules: Only actual profits from a successful new venture are deducted from back wages. A failed venture results in zero deductions.
  • Industry Disconnection: If an employee loses touch with their specialized field during a long trial, making them harder to hire, courts may award higher back wages to reflect this setback.
Actionable Checklist for All Stakeholders
For HR ProfessionalsFor Legal PractitionersFor General Employees
Audit Payout Risks: Calculate worst-case back wage liabilities beyond 24 months before terminating staff.Leverage Section 30: Argue statutory supremacy over practice notes when claiming full back wages.Document Job Hunts: Keep strict records of all job applications and business attempts post-dismissal.
Expedite Trials: Avoid delaying tactics in court, as prolonged cases directly increase your financial liability.Analyze Professional Decay: Present evidence of a client's diminishing employability due to time away from tech/industry.Understand Your Rights: Note that court delays do not automatically reduce your potential compensation.

Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW: After having found prosecution has established a prima facie case, trial Judge has to call accused to enter his defence

Legal Update: Why Malaysian Courts Cannot Evaluate the Insanity Defense at the Prima Facie Stage In Malaysian criminal procedure, the boundary between the prosecution stage and the defense stage is rigid. A critical question often arises in trials involving mental health: Can a trial judge acquit an accused person at the close of the prosecution's case if medical evidence strongly suggests the accused was of unsound mind during the offense? The Federal Court and Court of Appeal have definitively answered no . Evaluating a statutory defense before calling for the defense is a serious error of law. The Binding Precedents: Mohd Rozani and Pang Kar Foong The legal position was firmly clarified by the apex court in PP v. Mohd Rozani Yahaya [2025] 1 MLRA 203 , and subsequently reinforced by the Court of Appeal in Pendakwa Raya v Pang Kar Foong [2026] 4 MLRA 23 . In Pang Kar Foong , the Court of Appeal explicitly noted its binding obligation to follow the Federal Court’s ruling, overtu...
Read more

STRATA MANAGEMENT: TRIBUNAL IS NOT A COURT

Why Strata Management Tribunal Awards Do Not Trigger Res Judicata: Court of Appeal Clarifies A common misconception among property owners and management bodies in Malaysia is that the Strata Management Tribunal (SMT) functions exactly like a traditional civil court. Many believe that once the SMT delivers an award, the dispute is permanently locked under the legal doctrine of res judicata (which prevents the same parties from litigating the same issue twice). However, a landmark decision by the Court of Appeal has completely dismantled this assumption. In the case of Yong Kein Sin & Anor v Perbadanan Pengurusan Springtide Residences and other appeals , the Court of Appeal ruled that SMT awards do not automatically attract the application of res judicata . 1. The Legal Status: An SMT is an Inferior Tribunal, Not a Court The foundation of the Court of Appeal’s ruling rests on how the law defines an adjudicating body. Under Section 3 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and Section ...
Read more

Case Analysis: Sivarasa Rasiah v Badan Peguam Malaysia & Anor — Political Office and the Independence of the Malaysian Bar

Case Analysis: Sivarasa Rasiah v Badan Peguam Malaysia & Anor — Political Office and the Independence of the Malaysian Bar Introduction The intersection of constitutional liberties and statutory regulations often creates significant legal debates in Malaysia. A landmark case addressing this dynamic is Sivarasa Rasiah v Badan Peguam Malaysia & Anor . This Court of Appeal decision clarifies the boundaries of the freedom of association under the Federal Constitution, specifically concerning the governance of professional bodies. Case Background The appellant, Sivarasa Rasiah, was a practicing advocate and solicitor in Malaysia. Following his election as the vice-president of a political party, he faced disqualification from serving as a member of the Bar Council. The disqualification was enforced under Section 46A(1)(c)(ii) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 (LPA) . This specific provision strictly prohibits individuals who hold office in a political party from being elected as memb...
Read more