Ng, Zainurul, Seke & Khoo (NZSK) has secured a significant victory at the Kuala Lumpur High Court in Hasnah Hashim v. Bina Puri Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 5 MLRH 403, where the Court dismissed a judicial review application challenging the Industrial Court’s finding that the employee was not constructively dismissed.

The matter was argued by Khoo Ai Theng, representing Bina Puri Sdn Bhd.

Background of the Case

The claimant, the Mechanical & Electrical (M&E) Senior Manager, alleged constructive dismissal after being assigned to oversee the Tasik Kenyir Project during ongoing discussions for a Mutual Separation Scheme (MSS). She resigned and claimed the additional duty constituted a fundamental breach of her employment contract.

The Industrial Court dismissed her constructive dismissal claim.
Dissatisfied, the claimant sought judicial review, attempting to quash the Industrial Court’s award.

High Court’s Decision

The High Court dismissed the judicial review, holding:

1. Judicial Review Not Available (Primary Ground)

Following the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2020, representations made after 1 January 2021 must be challenged only by appeal under section 33C of the IRA, not judicial review.

Since the claimant lodged her representation on 3 June 2021, judicial review was procedurally incompetent.

The application was struck out on this ground alone.

2. No Constructive Dismissal (Substantive Grounds)

Even on the merits, the Court affirmed the Industrial Court’s findings:

• Additional duties were within her contractual job scope

Her job description and prior project-based postings expressly allowed:

• Project site supervision

• Relocation as directed

• “Any other duties assigned by management”

• No transfer or relocation occurred

She was not permanently transferred 231 km away; instead:

• Only 3–4 days per week were required onsite

• Assignment lasted three months

• Housing and allowances were arranged

• She remained based at HQ

• No bad faith by the employer

The assignment arose because she was the only qualified M&E expert able to resolve urgent technical issues with the subcontractor.

• MSS negotiations did not restrict management’s right to assign duties

The Court held the claimant is bound by her pleadings — her allegations of unfair MSS negotiations and bad faith were unsupported by evidence.

Why This Case Matters

✔ Clarifies post-amendment IRA procedure

Employees who file representations after 1 January 2021 must challenge Industrial Court awards via appeal, not judicial review.

✔ Confirms employers’ management prerogative

Assignments within job scope and temporary project postings do not constitute constructive dismissal.

✔ Reinforces strict pleading requirements

Applicants cannot expand grounds in judicial review beyond what was pleaded at the Industrial Court.

Counsel

Khoo Ai Theng
Advocate & Solicitor
Ng, Zainurul, Seke & Khoo (NZSK)